术后立体定向放疗时代脑转移瘤切除策略的再思考:与非脑转移瘤的比较分析。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Levin Häni, Danial Nasiri, Antonia Gächter, Artem Klimov, Mattia Branca, Nicole Söll, Andreas Raabe, Daniel M Aebersold, Evelyn Herrmann, Ekin Ermiş, Sonja Vulcu, Nicolas Bachmann, Philippe Schucht
{"title":"术后立体定向放疗时代脑转移瘤切除策略的再思考:与非脑转移瘤的比较分析。","authors":"Levin Häni, Danial Nasiri, Antonia Gächter, Artem Klimov, Mattia Branca, Nicole Söll, Andreas Raabe, Daniel M Aebersold, Evelyn Herrmann, Ekin Ermiş, Sonja Vulcu, Nicolas Bachmann, Philippe Schucht","doi":"10.1007/s11060-025-05075-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To decrease the recurrence rate after complete resection of a brain metastasis, removal of a surgical safety margin is advocated. This is not always feasible when resecting a metastasis in an eloquent location. We aimed to assess the recurrence rate after resection of metastases in an eloquent location followed by postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy to the resection cavity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively included patients with 1-3 brain metastases undergoing gross total resection and postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy between 2010 and 2022. Primary endpoint was local recurrence free survival (LRFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and distant brain failure free survival. Patients were grouped according to the location of their metastasis into eloquent and non-eloquent. Eloquent localization was considered a surrogate for resection without a surgical safety margin according to our institutional practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 193 patients with 201 resected metastases. Ninety-five metastases (47.3%) were classified as eloquent and 106 (52.7%) as non-eloquent. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference in LRFS between eloquent and non-eloquent metastases (HR 0.821, 95%-CI 0.447-1.507, p = 0.523). Only increased preoperative tumor volume was associated with worse LRFS (HR 1.015, 95% CI 1.001-1.028, p = 0.033). There was no difference concerning secondary endpoints between eloquent and non-eloquent metastases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Omission of a surgical safety margin in at least a part of the resection cavity due to eloquence of adjacent tissue had no detrimental effect on local control after resection and postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy of a brain metastasis. This could influence the strategy during resection of an eloquent metastasis.</p>","PeriodicalId":16425,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuro-Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconsideration of the resection strategy of eloquent brain metastasis in the era of postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy: a comparative analysis with non-eloquent metastasis.\",\"authors\":\"Levin Häni, Danial Nasiri, Antonia Gächter, Artem Klimov, Mattia Branca, Nicole Söll, Andreas Raabe, Daniel M Aebersold, Evelyn Herrmann, Ekin Ermiş, Sonja Vulcu, Nicolas Bachmann, Philippe Schucht\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11060-025-05075-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To decrease the recurrence rate after complete resection of a brain metastasis, removal of a surgical safety margin is advocated. This is not always feasible when resecting a metastasis in an eloquent location. We aimed to assess the recurrence rate after resection of metastases in an eloquent location followed by postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy to the resection cavity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively included patients with 1-3 brain metastases undergoing gross total resection and postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy between 2010 and 2022. Primary endpoint was local recurrence free survival (LRFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and distant brain failure free survival. Patients were grouped according to the location of their metastasis into eloquent and non-eloquent. Eloquent localization was considered a surrogate for resection without a surgical safety margin according to our institutional practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 193 patients with 201 resected metastases. Ninety-five metastases (47.3%) were classified as eloquent and 106 (52.7%) as non-eloquent. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference in LRFS between eloquent and non-eloquent metastases (HR 0.821, 95%-CI 0.447-1.507, p = 0.523). Only increased preoperative tumor volume was associated with worse LRFS (HR 1.015, 95% CI 1.001-1.028, p = 0.033). There was no difference concerning secondary endpoints between eloquent and non-eloquent metastases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Omission of a surgical safety margin in at least a part of the resection cavity due to eloquence of adjacent tissue had no detrimental effect on local control after resection and postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy of a brain metastasis. This could influence the strategy during resection of an eloquent metastasis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neuro-Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neuro-Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-025-05075-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuro-Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-025-05075-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:为降低脑转移完全切除后的复发率,提倡切除手术安全边界。当切除肿瘤转移灶时,这种方法并不总是可行的。我们的目的是评估肿瘤转移切除后的复发率,术后对切除腔进行立体定向放疗。方法:我们回顾性地纳入2010年至2022年期间接受总全切除术和术后立体定向放疗的1-3例脑转移患者。主要终点为局部无复发生存期(LRFS)。次要终点是总生存期和远端无脑衰竭生存期。患者根据转移部位分为雄辩型和非雄辩型。根据我们的机构实践,雄辩定位被认为是没有手术安全界限的切除的替代方法。结果:我们纳入193例201例切除转移灶患者。有雄辩者95例(47.3%),无雄辩者106例(52.7%)。Kaplan-Meier分析显示,雄辩型和非雄辩型转移瘤的LRFS差异无统计学意义(HR 0.821, 95%-CI 0.447-1.507, p = 0.523)。术前肿瘤体积增大与LRFS恶化相关(HR 1.015, 95% CI 1.001 ~ 1.028, p = 0.033)。有说服力和无说服力转移的次要终点没有差异。结论:脑转移瘤切除后局部控制及术后立体定向放疗,因邻近组织肿大而至少部分切除腔遗漏手术安全裕度无不利影响。这可能会影响转移瘤切除时的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reconsideration of the resection strategy of eloquent brain metastasis in the era of postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy: a comparative analysis with non-eloquent metastasis.

Purpose: To decrease the recurrence rate after complete resection of a brain metastasis, removal of a surgical safety margin is advocated. This is not always feasible when resecting a metastasis in an eloquent location. We aimed to assess the recurrence rate after resection of metastases in an eloquent location followed by postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy to the resection cavity.

Methods: We retrospectively included patients with 1-3 brain metastases undergoing gross total resection and postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy between 2010 and 2022. Primary endpoint was local recurrence free survival (LRFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and distant brain failure free survival. Patients were grouped according to the location of their metastasis into eloquent and non-eloquent. Eloquent localization was considered a surrogate for resection without a surgical safety margin according to our institutional practice.

Results: We included 193 patients with 201 resected metastases. Ninety-five metastases (47.3%) were classified as eloquent and 106 (52.7%) as non-eloquent. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference in LRFS between eloquent and non-eloquent metastases (HR 0.821, 95%-CI 0.447-1.507, p = 0.523). Only increased preoperative tumor volume was associated with worse LRFS (HR 1.015, 95% CI 1.001-1.028, p = 0.033). There was no difference concerning secondary endpoints between eloquent and non-eloquent metastases.

Conclusion: Omission of a surgical safety margin in at least a part of the resection cavity due to eloquence of adjacent tissue had no detrimental effect on local control after resection and postoperative stereotactic radiotherapy of a brain metastasis. This could influence the strategy during resection of an eloquent metastasis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neuro-Oncology
Journal of Neuro-Oncology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
277
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neuro-Oncology is a multi-disciplinary journal encompassing basic, applied, and clinical investigations in all research areas as they relate to cancer and the central nervous system. It provides a single forum for communication among neurologists, neurosurgeons, radiotherapists, medical oncologists, neuropathologists, neurodiagnosticians, and laboratory-based oncologists conducting relevant research. The Journal of Neuro-Oncology does not seek to isolate the field, but rather to focus the efforts of many disciplines in one publication through a format which pulls together these diverse interests. More than any other field of oncology, cancer of the central nervous system requires multi-disciplinary approaches. To alleviate having to scan dozens of journals of cell biology, pathology, laboratory and clinical endeavours, JNO is a periodical in which current, high-quality, relevant research in all aspects of neuro-oncology may be found.
×
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