The Impact of Margin Expansions on Local Control and Radionecrosis Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Raj Singh, John G Roubil, Eric J Lehrer, Gael Muanamputu, Evan M Thomas, Sasha J Beyer, Raju R Raval, Rupesh Kotecha, Joshua D Palmer
{"title":"The Impact of Margin Expansions on Local Control and Radionecrosis Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Raj Singh, John G Roubil, Eric J Lehrer, Gael Muanamputu, Evan M Thomas, Sasha J Beyer, Raju R Raval, Rupesh Kotecha, Joshua D Palmer","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.01.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The implications of margin expansions on local control(LC) and radionecrosis(RN) for treating brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery(SRS) remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare LC and RN between patients with brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery(SRS) planned with no margin vs. a margin.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We utilized PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection inclusion criteria for studies of patients with brain metastases treated with SRS with no margin or a margin. Primary outcomes were 1-year LC and radiographic and symptomatic RN incidences. Weighted random effects meta-analyses were performed to compare effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 17 studies, we identified 5,015 lesions treated with SRS (1,360 lesions with no margin and 3,684 with a margin). The median total margin was 1.5 mm (range: 1-3). Single fraction SRS was most common with a median prescription dose of 21 Gy (range: 15-24 Gy). The estimated 1-year LC rate was similar with a margin (88.4% (95% CI: 83.7-92.4%) vs. without (83.0% (95% CI: 69.3-93.2%; p = 0.28)). Estimated incidences of radiographic RN following SRS with no margin vs. a margin were similar at 9.2% (95% CI: 0.2-29.6%) and 7.0% (95% CI: 4.1-10.7%; p=0.56), respectively. Estimated incidences of symptomatic RN following SRS with no margin vs. with a margin were 8.6% (95% CI: 5.2-12.7%) and 4.1% (95% CI: 0.9-9.3%), respectively (p=0.24).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Significant differences were not noted in either LC or RN for patients treated with margin expansions vs. without. Prospective evaluations are warranted to further assess this question while controlling for other relevant treatment planning and metastasis considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2025.01.012","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The implications of margin expansions on local control(LC) and radionecrosis(RN) for treating brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery(SRS) remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare LC and RN between patients with brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery(SRS) planned with no margin vs. a margin.

Methodology: We utilized PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection inclusion criteria for studies of patients with brain metastases treated with SRS with no margin or a margin. Primary outcomes were 1-year LC and radiographic and symptomatic RN incidences. Weighted random effects meta-analyses were performed to compare effect sizes.

Results: Across 17 studies, we identified 5,015 lesions treated with SRS (1,360 lesions with no margin and 3,684 with a margin). The median total margin was 1.5 mm (range: 1-3). Single fraction SRS was most common with a median prescription dose of 21 Gy (range: 15-24 Gy). The estimated 1-year LC rate was similar with a margin (88.4% (95% CI: 83.7-92.4%) vs. without (83.0% (95% CI: 69.3-93.2%; p = 0.28)). Estimated incidences of radiographic RN following SRS with no margin vs. a margin were similar at 9.2% (95% CI: 0.2-29.6%) and 7.0% (95% CI: 4.1-10.7%; p=0.56), respectively. Estimated incidences of symptomatic RN following SRS with no margin vs. with a margin were 8.6% (95% CI: 5.2-12.7%) and 4.1% (95% CI: 0.9-9.3%), respectively (p=0.24).

Conclusions: Significant differences were not noted in either LC or RN for patients treated with margin expansions vs. without. Prospective evaluations are warranted to further assess this question while controlling for other relevant treatment planning and metastasis considerations.

目的:在使用立体定向放射手术(SRS)治疗脑转移瘤时,边缘扩大对局部控制(LC)和放射性坏死(RN)的影响仍不清楚。我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,比较了计划采用无边缘与有边缘立体定向放射手术(SRS)治疗脑转移瘤患者的局部控制率和放射性坏死率:我们采用PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE选择纳入标准,对接受无边缘或有边缘SRS治疗的脑转移患者进行研究。主要结果为1年生存率、放射学和症状性RN发生率。为了比较效应大小,我们进行了加权随机效应荟萃分析:在17项研究中,我们发现了5015个病灶接受了SRS治疗(1360个病灶无边缘,3684个病灶有边缘)。总边缘中位数为 1.5 毫米(范围:1-3)。单部分 SRS 最为常见,中位处方剂量为 21 Gy(范围:15-24 Gy)。有边缘(88.4% (95% CI: 83.7-92.4%) 与无边缘(83.0% (95% CI: 69.3-93.2%; p = 0.28))的估计 1 年 LC 率相似。无边缘 SRS 与有边缘 SRS 后放射学 RN 的估计发生率相似,分别为 9.2% (95% CI: 0.2-29.6%) 和 7.0% (95% CI: 4.1-10.7%; p=0.56)。无边缘SRS与有边缘SRS后无症状RN的估计发生率分别为8.6%(95% CI:5.2-12.7%)和4.1%(95% CI:0.9-9.3%)(P=0.24):采用扩大边缘治疗与不采用扩大边缘治疗的患者在LC或RN方面均无显著差异。有必要进行前瞻性评估,在控制其他相关治疗计划和转移因素的同时,进一步评估这一问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Practical Radiation Oncology
Practical Radiation Oncology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.10%
发文量
177
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: The overarching mission of Practical Radiation Oncology is to improve the quality of radiation oncology practice. PRO''s purpose is to document the state of current practice, providing background for those in training and continuing education for practitioners, through discussion and illustration of new techniques, evaluation of current practices, and publication of case reports. PRO strives to provide its readers content that emphasizes knowledge "with a purpose." The content of PRO includes: Original articles focusing on patient safety, quality measurement, or quality improvement initiatives Original articles focusing on imaging, contouring, target delineation, simulation, treatment planning, immobilization, organ motion, and other practical issues ASTRO guidelines, position papers, and consensus statements Essays that highlight enriching personal experiences in caring for cancer patients and their families.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信