Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: analysis of outcome and risk of brain radionecrosis
© Minniti et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
Received: 2 February 2011
Accepted: 15 May 2011
Published: 15 May 2011
to investigate the factors affecting survival and toxicity in patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), with special attention to volumes of brain receiving a specific dose (V10 - V16 Gy) as predictors for brain radionecrosis.
Patients and Methods
Two hundred six consecutive patients with 310 cerebral metastases less than 3.5 cm were treated with SRS as primary treatment and followed prospectively at University of Rome La Sapienza Sant'Andrea Hospital. Overall survival, brain control, and local control were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method calculated from the time of SRS. Univariate and multivariate analysis using a Cox proportional hazards regression model were performed to determine the predictive value of prognostic factors for treatment outcome and SRS-related complications.
Median overall survival and brain control were 14.1 months and 10 months, respectively. The 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 58% and 24%, and respective brain control were 43% and 22%. Sixteen patients recurred locally after SRS, with 1-year and 2-year local control rates of 92% and 84%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, stable extracranial disease and KPS >70 were associated with the most significant survival benefit. Neurological complications were recorded in 27 (13%) patients. Severe neurological complications (RTOG Grade 3 and 4) occurred in 5.8% of patients. Brain radionecrosis occurred in 24% of treated lesions, being symptomatic in 10% and asymptomatic in 14%. On multivariate analysis, V10 through V16 Gy were independent risk factors for radionecrosis, with V10 Gy and V12 Gy being the most predictive (p = 0.0001). For V10 Gy >12.6 cm3 and V12 Gy >10.9 cm3 the risk of radionecrosis was 47%.
SRS alone represents a feasible option as initial treatment for patients with brain metastases, however a significant subset of patients may develop neurological complications. Lesions with V12 Gy >8.5 cm3 carries a risk of radionecrosis >10% and should be considered for hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy especially when located in/near eloquent areas.
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become an increasingly treatment option in the initial management of patients with brain metastases. Its efficacy when used alone or in combination with whole brain radiation-therapy (WBRT) has been demonstrated in several randomized trials and multi-institutional studies [1–8]. SRS plus WBRT is associated with better local tumor control and functional autonomy for patients with brain metastases when compared to WBRT alone, and with significant longer survival in patients with a single metastasis . Recently, two large randomized studies have shown similar survival benefits and functional independence between patients with 1-3 brain metastases treated with SRS alone and SRS plus WBRT [7, 8].
The reported survival of 7-14 months after SRS is roughly equivalent to that reported after surgical resection . Although surgery is usually indicated in patients with lesions causing significant mass effect and for large lesions > 3 cm in locations amenable to resection, in current clinical practice SRS is frequently employed as less invasive and more cost-effective treatment option than resection.
A variable rate of neurological complications of 2-14% has been reported after SRS [7, 8, 10–17]; however, a higher rate has been shown in some studies [1, 18–20] suggesting that patients may have side-effects after SRS more often than reported. The most common complication of SRS is represented by the development of brain radionecrosis that may occur in up to 50% of treated lesions [21–26]. Factors related to the development of radionecrosis after SRS include dose, treated volume, and volume of the brain receiving a specific dose [22, 23, 25–28]
In the present study we have reviewed our experience with SRS in patients with brain metastases treated with SRS alone as primary treatment. Related factors associated with the clinical outcome and the development of treatment-induced complications have been evaluated.
Patients and Methods
Between September 2006 and January 2010, 206 consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with 1-3 cerebral metastases less than 3.5 cm on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and derived from an histologically confirmed systemic cancer, were treated with SRS as primary treatment and followed prospectively at University of Rome La Sapienza Sant'Andrea Hospital. Patients who had received previous surgical resection or WBRT, or receiving adjuvant WBRT following SRS were excluded from the study.
All metastatic tumors were treated with LINAC-based SRS. The BrainLAB frameless stereotactic system, in conjunction with the BrainScan treatment planning system (Version 5.31) has been used for stereotactic treatment. The target volume was identified on the basis of the fused CT and magnetic resonance image (MRI) scans. Radiosurgical dose was 20 Gy for metastases with a volume ≤ 4.3 cm3 (corresponding to a sphere of 2 cm in diameter), 18 Gy for metastases with a volume of 4.3-14.1 cm3, and 15-16 Gy for metastases with a volume > 14.1 cm3 or located in the brainstem. The gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated as a contrast-enhancing tumor demonstrated on MRI scans. The planning target volume (PTV) was generated by the geometric expansion of GTV plus 1-2 mm. Doses were prescribed to the 80-90% isodose line normalized to the maximum dose. Treatment volumes were achieved with 6-10 noncoplanar dynamic arcs by using a 6-MV LINAC. All patients underwent a second CT (verification CT) scan before the start of treatment in the CT-room and immediately transferred to the treatment room in a wheel chair. Planning and verification CT scans were fused employing a fusion algorithm included in the BrainLab planning system. The new coordinates of the isocenter were recorded and the isocenter shift between verification and planning CT calculated as previously reported . This whole procedure takes less than 10 minutes. The mask was refitted or the treatment replanned if the isocenter shift was > 1.0 mm. Patients with multiple metastases were treated in 2 or 3 following days in outpatient clinic.
Patients were examined clinically one month after radiosurgical treatment and then every 2 months. MRI was made every 2 months in the first year after the treatment, and then every 3 months or as appropriate according to the neurological conditions. The size of treated lesions was measured in three dimensions. Complete and partial responses were defined as total radiographic disappearance of lesion or decrease in tumor volume > 50%. Local progression was defined as radiographic increase in the size of metastatic lesion. For all patients who died, the cause of death (intracranial versus extracranial progression) was determined by clinical/neurological evaluation and brain/systemic radiologic studies. Patients were considered to have died as result of a neurological death if they had evidence of progressive intracranial disease consisting of expanding intracranial masses, CNS hemorrhage, progressive neurologic symptoms, meningeal carcinomatosis, or hydrocephalus resulting in herniation.
At each visit, neurological status and the severity of complications were rated according to RTOG CNS toxicity criteria. Severe complications were considered to have an RTOG Grade ≥ 3). Adverse neurological events were considered consequence of SRS treatment if they were associated or not to radiological abnormalities suggestive of brain radionecrosis in absence of progressive disease. Radionecrosis was assessed subjectively using anatomic and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced (DSC) perfusion MRI. The following criteria have been considered as suggestive of radionecrosis: 1) increased T1 contrast enhancement located in the irradiated area with central hypointensity and increased peripheral edema; 2) substantial regression or stability (for at least 4 months) of enhancing areas on serial follow-up MRI scans without additional treatment; 3) a clear absence of perfusion (black hole), in the absence of any nodular highly vascularized area within the contrast-enhanced lesion at perfusion MRI. Enhancing lesion that progressively increased in size on serial MR imaging during a minimum follow-up period of 4 months was scored as recurrent metastatic tumor. All diagnoses were confirmed retrospectively by the same experienced neuroradiological team (AB, AR, GT). Radionecrosis was recorded as clinically symptomatic when associated with neurological deterioration, whereas was recorded as asymptomatic in patients who remained neurologically stable.
All MRI scans were obtained with a 1.5-T MRI scanner (Siemens Sonata, Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany). After a localizing sagittal T1-weighted image, non-enhanced axial T1-weighted spin echo (TR/TE, 600/12 ms) and axial T2-weighted (TR/TE 3,680/85) images were obtained. Post-contrast axial and sagittal (multiplanar reconstruction) T1-weighted imaging was performed after the acquisition of the DSC MRI data. DSC MRI scans were acquired using a T2-weighted (TR/TE/flip angle:1.490/40/90°) EPI sequence. A dynamic image series of 50 measurements performed on 14 axial sections with slice thickness 5 mm and interslice gap 1.5 mm resulted in a total scan time of 1.20 min, with a field of view of 230-230 mm, matrix 128-128 and an image acquisition matrix of 128 × 128, signal bandwidth 1502. A dose 0.1 mmol/kg bolus injection of gadolinium contrast (Magnevist; Shering Diagnostics, Berlin, Germany) delivered at the rate of 5 ml/s was used. The post-processing of the DSC MRI data were performed on a Leonardo VD10B Syngo OEM installation (Siemens AG).
Overall survival, brain control, and local control (control of irradiated lesions) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method calculated from the time of SRS. For univariate analysis, the log-rank test was used for categorical variables, and the Cox proportional hazards model was used for continuous variables. The following factors for outcome were tested: age (<65 vs ≥65 years), pretreatment KPS score (≤70 vs >70), number of brain metastases (1 vs > 1), recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class (I vs II vs III), histology (lung vs breast vs melanoma vs others), and extracranial disease (stable vs active). Radionecrosis changes were assessed per tumor and event-free survival time using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for the presence of radionecrosis by using the following patient and tumor determinants: sex, age, histology, KPS score, tumor volume, SRS dose, volume receiving a specific dose of 10,12,14,16 and 18 Gy (V10 Gy-V18 Gy), site of tumor, conformality index , and homogeneity index. Prognostic factors for treatment outcome and SRS-related complications found significant (P < 0.05) were included in a multivariate outcome with analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. In order to compare the own results with previously published risk prediction models, we have analyzed the correlation between V10 and V12 Gy and the increased risk of brain necrosis. Volumes were divided in intervals determined by quantiles and the risk of necrosis calculated in each interval. A probability value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Patients and tumor characteristics
Summary of tumor characteristics and treatment parameters
number of patients
no of lesions per patient
radiosurgical dose (Gy)
treated volume (cm 3 )
treated volume (cm 3 )
The median GTV was 1.88 cm3 (range 0.03-18.1 cm3), and the median PTV was 2.81 cm3(range 0.2-23.7 cm3). Mean prescribed dose was 18 Gy (range 15-20 Gy) at a median isodose of 87% (range 84-91). The average homogeneity index was 1.1 (range 1-1.3), and the median conformality index was 1.6 (range 1.1-2.7).
Overall survival and brain control
Univariate and multivariate survival analysis
No. of patients
Survival time Median months
Hazard ratio (95% CI)
No of brain metastases
Analysis of complications
Incidence of complications associated with SRS among 310 metastases
Type of complication*
Univariate and multivariate analysis of radiation-induced brain necrosis
Salvage treatment for intracranial/local progression
Forty-seven patients received WBRT and 21 patients received further SRS for intracranial progression. Patient receiving WBRT were subsequently excluded from the analysis. Among these patients, the median time to progression was 6 months (range 2-32 months). Median survival after WBRT was 6.7 months. Local progression was treated with resection in 8 patients and WBRT or SRS in 6 patients. Histopathological evaluation of surgically treated lesions showed tumor progression in all patients.
In the present study we have evaluated the clinical outcome and the risk of treatment-related complications in 206 patients treated with SRS as initial treatment for 1-3 brain metastases. Median overall survival and brain control were 14.1 months and 10 months, respectively. The 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 58% and 24%, and respective brain control rates were 43% and 22%. Sixteen patients recurred locally after SRS with 1-year and 2-year local control of 92% and 84%, respectively. The reported results are in accordance with previous series of SRS for brain metastases that report a median survival ranging from 7 to14 months [1–8].
Surgery, WBRT, and SRS alone or in combination have been employed as treatment option for patients with either single or multiple brain metastases, although their optimal treatment is still an issue that remains open for debate. Survival advantages with the use of SRS alone or in conjunction with WBRT have been reported by several randomized trials [2, 5, 7, 8]. In a series of 132 patients with 1-4 brain metastases randomly assigned to receive WBRT plus SRS or SRS alone Aoyama et al  reported no significant difference in survival (8 months versus 7.5 months) and 1-year local control (72.5% versus 88.7%). Although SRS alone was associated with increased intracranial progression as compared with WBRT plus SRS, no differences in the frequency of neurologic deaths and preservation of neurologic function were observed. Similarly, the recent EORTC 22952-26001 study on the adjuvant WBRT versus observation after SRS or surgical resection of 1-3 cerebral metastases showed that adjuvant WBRT was able to reduce the frequency of intracranial progression but failed to improve the median survival . Few studies have compared SRS with or without WBRT versus resection plus WBRT, with the majority of them reporting no differences in survival and neurological deaths between groups [31–35]. In a retrospective analysis of 206 patients with one or two metastases, Rades et al  reported a similar outcome in patients treated with WBRT plus SRS or surgery plus WBRT and boost. The 1-year survival and brain control rates were 65% and 70% after WBRT plus SRS, and 63% and 78% after surgery plus WBRT and boost, respectively. Based on the present results and published data, SRS alone as initial treatment strategy in patients with either single or multiple metastases is a feasible therapeutic option associated with high local control and survival benefits, although the superiority of SRS versus other treatment options in terms of improved survival remains to be demonstrated. Certainly, the high 1-year brain tumor recurrence rates of about 50% after SRS alone clearly indicates that a frequent monitoring of intracranial disease is mandatory for such patients.
On multivariate analysis, KPS >70 and stable extracranial disease were significantly associated with longer survival. Number of metastases did not emerge as significant variable associated with the outcome similarly to some recent [5, 6, 17] and differently from earlier published series [12, 36]. The high local control after SRS and the improved control of extracranial disease reported with the combination of cytotoxic and targeted agents [37–41] may, at least in part, explain these results. Similarly, older age did not have a negative impact on survival, suggesting that SRS is a feasible and safe approach also in this subgroup of patients [42, 43].
Brain necrosis represents the most important late toxicity reported after SRS, leading to neurological complications in 2-32% of patients [1–10, 18–20]. At doses of 16-22 Gy usually employed for the radiosurgical treatment of brain metastases, radionecrosis has been reported in up to 50% of treated lesions, with radiation dose, tumor volume and location of the lesion being the most important predictive variables [22–26]. In our study, radionecrosis occurred in 24% of treated lesions with SRS, leading to severe neurological complications (RTOG Grade ≥ 3) in 5.8% of patients. Other adverse events included headache, iatrogenic Cushing syndrome, and more rarely conditions as haemorrhage and hydrocephalus. The present results confirm that SRS is associated with a relatively high rate of treatment-related complications as reported by some authors, although with an acceptable incidence of severe neurological deficits [18–21].
Analysis of risk factors for brain necrosis showed that V10 Gy and V12 Gy were the most important independent predictors of both symptomatic and asymptomatic radionecrosis. At a median follow-up of 9.4 months the actuarial risk at 1 year for the development brain radionecrosis increased significantly through Q1-Q4, being 0% in Q1, 16% in Q2, 24% in Q3, and 51% in Q4. Our data are consistent with previous studies that have shown a significant correlation between volume receiving a dose of 10 or 12 Gy and the development of radionecrosis in patients treated with SRS for brain metastases and other intracranial tumors [21, 22, 25, 26]. Blonigen et al  in a series of 63 patients with a total of 173 brain metastases treated with SRS have reported a significant radionecrosis risk up to 68.8% for V10 Gy >14.5 cm3 and V12 Gy >10.8 cm3, respectively. In contrast, no cases of radionecrosis were found for V10 Gy < 0.68 cm3 and V12 Gy < 0.5 cm3. In a retrospective analysis of 198 intracranial tumors treated with Gamma Knife SRS, Korytko et al  confirmed the correlation between the V12 Gy and the risk of symptomatic radionecrosis. The risk was 55.3% for V12 Gy > 10 cm3 versus 22.5% for V12 Gy < 10 cm3, being significant in multivariate analysis. In contrast, the risk for asymptomatic radionecrosis did not increase with V12 Gy, remaining at 19.1% for tumors <10 cm3 and 18.5% for tumors > 10 cm3, respectively. Few authors have evaluated the predictive value of volume receiving 10 or 12 Gy on the development of radionecrosis after SRS for arteriovenous malformation (AVM) [21, 22]. At a median follow-up of 28 months Voges et al  reported an actuarial risk of radionecrosis of 38.4% at 2 years in 62 patients with intraparenchymal lesions, with an incidence of events of 0% for volumes covered by the 10 Gy isodose-line ≤10 cm3 and 23.7% for volumes >10 cm3. Flickinger et al  in a series of 307 patients with AVM who received GK SRS at the University of Pittsburgh between 1987 and 1993 observed an incidence of symptomatic radionecrosis of 30.5% at 7 years. On multivariate analysis, V12 Gy and AVM location were the only independent variable that correlated significantly with brain necrosis.
Although the reported risk of radionecrosis after SRS is variable in the published series depending on different radiosurgical techniques, type of lesion treated, length of follow-up and patient's selection, nevertheless volume receiving 12 Gy may be adopted as the standard method of reporting the dose to the normal brain to estimate the risk of toxicity after SRS. In our department brain metastases with a V12 Gy >8.5 cm3, which is the midpoint of 3rd quartile corresponding to the risk of developing radionecrosis >10% at 1 year, are considered for hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy using a dose of 24-27 Gy in 3 fractions rather than single SRS to reduce the risk of treatment-related complications.
In conclusion, SRS represents a feasible option for patients with brain metastases associated with survival benefit, however a significant subset of patients may develop neurological complications. Radionecrosis represents the most important late toxicity after SRS with the brain volumes irradiated at 10 and 12 Gy being the most important independent predictors of brain necrosis. Large lesions at high risk of radiation-induced complications especially when located in/near eloquent areas should be considered for hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy.
We are grateful to Mr. Gianluca Marrone and Matteo Luciani for their excellent technical assistance during the study.
- Pirzkall A, Debus J, Lohr F, Fuss M, Rhein B, Engenhart-Cabillic R, Wannenmacher M: Radiosurgery alone or in combination with whole-brain-radiotherapy for brain metastases. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16: 3563-3569.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kondziolka D, Patel A, Lunsford LD, Kassam A, Flickinger JC: Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole brain radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for patients with multiple brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 45: 427-434.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sanghavi SN, Miranpuri SS, Chappell R, Buatti JM, Sneed PK, Suh JH, Regine WF, Weltman E, King VJ, Goetsch SJ, Breneman JC, Sperduto PW, Scott C, Mabanta S, Mehta MP: Radiosurgery for patients with brain metastases: a multi-institutional analysis, stratified by the RTOG recursive partitioning analysis method. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 51: 426-434. 10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01622-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sneed PK, Suh JH, Goetsch SJ, Sanghavi SN, Chappell R, Buatti JM, Regine WF, Weltman E, King VJ, Breneman JC, Sperduto PW, Mehta MP: A multi-institutional review of radiosurgery alone vs. radiosurgery with whole brain radiotherapy as the initial management of brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 53: 519-526. 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02770-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Andrews DW, Scott CB, Sperduto PW, Flanders AE, Gaspar LE, Schell MC, Werner-Wasik M, Demas W, Ryu J, Bahary JP, Souhami L, Rotman M, Mehta MP, Curran WJ Jr: Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial. Lancet 2004, 363: 1665-1672. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16250-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Manon R, O'Neill A, Knisely J, Werner-Wasik M, Lazarus HM, Wagner H, Gilbert M, Mehta M: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Phase II trial of radiosurgery for one to three newly diagnosed brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, and sarcoma: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study (E 6397). J Clin Oncol 2005, 23: 8870-8876. 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.8747View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Aoyama H, Shirato H, Tago M, Nakagawa K, Toyoda T, Hatano K, Kenjyo M, Oya N, Hirota S, Shioura H, Kunieda E, Inomata T, Hayakawa K, Katoh N, Kobashi G: Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006, 295: 2483-2491. 10.1001/jama.295.21.2483View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kocher M, Soffietti R, Abacioglu U, Villà S, Fauchon F, Baumert BG, Fariselli L, Tzuk-Shina T, Kortmann RD, Carrie C, Hassel MB, Kouri M, Valeinis E, van den Berge D, Collette S, Collette L, Mueller RP: Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after radiosurgery or surgical resection of one to three cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952-26001 study. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29: 134-141. 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.1655PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kalkanis SN, Kondziolka D, Gaspar LE, Burri SH, Asher AL, Cobbs CS, Ammirati M, Robinson PD, Andrews DW, Loeffler JS, McDermott M, Mehta MP, Mikkelsen T, Olson JJ, Paleologos NA, Patchell RA, Ryken TC, Linskey ME: The role of surgical resection in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol 2010, 96: 33-43. 10.1007/s11060-009-0061-8PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Frazier JL, Batra S, Kapor S, Vellimana A, Gandhi R, Carson KA, Shokek O, Lim M, Kleinberg L, Rigamonti D: Stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of brain metastases: an institutional retrospective analysis of survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 76: 1486-1492. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.028View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mehta MP, Rozental JM, Levin AB, Mackie TR, Kubsad SS, Gehring MA, Kinsella TJ: Defining the role of radiosurgery in the management of brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992, 24: 619-625. 10.1016/0360-3016(92)90706-NView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Joseph J, Adler JR, Cox RS, Hancock SL: Linear accelerator-based stereotaxic radiosurgery for brain metastases:the influence of number of lesions on survival. J Clin Oncol 1996, 14: 1085-1092.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lavine SD, Petrovich Z, Cohen-Gadol AA, Masri LS, Morton DL, O'Day SJ, Essner R, Zelman V, Yu C, Luxton G, Apuzzo ML: Gamma knife radiosurgery for metastatic melanoma: an analysis of survival, outcome, and complications. Neurosurgery 1999, 44: 59-64. 10.1097/00006123-199901000-00031View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sneed PK, Lamborn KR, Forstner JM, McDermott MW, Chang S, Park E, Gutin PH, Phillips TL, Wara WM, Larson DA: Radiosurgery for brain metastases: is whole brain radiotherapy necessary? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 43: 549-558. 10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00447-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Majhail NS, Chander S, Mehta VS, Julka PK, Ganesh T, Rath GK: Factors influencing early complications following Gamma Knife radiosurgery. A prospective study. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2001, 76: 36-46. 10.1159/000056493View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Varlotto JM, Flickinger JC, Niranjan A, Bhatnagar AK, Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD: Analysis of tumor control and toxicity in patients who have survived at least one year after radiosurgery for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 57: 452-464. 10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00568-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Muacevic A, Kreth FW, Tonn JC, Wowra B: Stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases from breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004, 100: 1705-1711. 10.1002/cncr.20167View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lutterbach J, Cyron D, Henne K, Ostertag CB: Radiosurgery followed by planned observation in patients with one to three brain metastases. Neurosurgery 2003, 52: 1066-1073. 10.1227/01.NEU.0000057695.46198.FEView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kondziolka D, Niranjan A, Flickinger JC, Lunsford LD: Radiosurgery with or without whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases: the patients' perspective regarding complications. Am J Clin Oncol 2005, 28: 173-179. 10.1097/01.coc.0000143016.15783.5bView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Williams BJ, Suki D, Fox BD, Pelloski CE, Maldaun MV, Sawaya RE, Lang FF, Rao G: Stereotactic radiosurgery for metastatic brain tumors: a comprehensive review of complications. J Neurosurg 2009, 111: 439-448. 10.3171/2008.11.JNS08984View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Flickinger JC, Lunsford LD, Kondziolka D, Maitz AH, Epstein AH, Simons SR, Wu A: Radiosurgery and brain tolerance: an analysis of neurodiagnostic imaging changes after gamma knife radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992, 23: 19-26. 10.1016/0360-3016(92)90539-TView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Voges J, Treuer H, Sturm V, Büchner C, Lehrke R, Kocher M, Staar S, Kuchta J, Müller RP: Risk analysis of linear accelerator radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996, 36: 1055-1063. 10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00422-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, Dinapoli R, Kline R, Loeffler J, Farnan N: Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 47: 291-298. 10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00507-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Petrovich Z, Yu C, Giannotta SL, O'Day S, Apuzzo ML: Survival and pattern of failure in brain metastasis treated with stereotactic gamma knife radiosurgery. J Neurosurg 2002,97(5 Suppl):499-506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Korytko T, Radivoyevitch T, Colussi V, Wessels BW, Pillai K, Maciunas RJ, Einstein DB: 12 Gy gamma knife radiosurgical volume is a predictor for radiation necrosis in non-AVM intracranial tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 64: 419-424. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.980View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Blonigen BJ, Steinmetz RD, Levin L, Lamba MA, Warnick RE, Breneman JC: Irradiated volume as a predictor of brain radionecrosis after linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 77: 996-1001. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nedzi LA, Kooy H, Alexander E, Gelman RS, Loeffler JS: Variables associated with the development of complications from radiosurgery of intracranial tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991, 21: 591-599. 10.1016/0360-3016(91)90675-TView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, Pollock BE, Yamamoto M, Gorman DA, Schomberg PJ, Sneed P, Larson D, Smith V, McDermott MW, Miyawaki L, Chilton J, Morantz RA, Young B, Jokura H, Liscak R: A multi-institutional analysis of complication outcomes after arteriovenous malformation radiosurgery. Int J RadiatOncol Biol Phys 1999, 44: 67-74. 10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00518-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Minniti G, Salvati M, Muni R, Lanzetta G, Osti MF, Clarke E, Costa A, Bozzao A, Trasimeni G, Enrici RM: Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiotherapy for treatment of multiple metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res 2010, 30: 3055-3061.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Collins SP, Coppa ND, Zhang Y, Collins BT, McRae DA, Jean WC: CyberKnife radiosurgery in the treatment of complex skull base tumors: analysis of treatment planning parameters. Radiat Oncol 2006, 1: 46. 10.1186/1748-717X-1-46PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Muacevic A, Kreth FW, Horstmann GA, Schmid-Elsaesser R, Wowra B, Steiger HJ, Reulen HJ: Surgery and radiotherapy compared with gamma knife radiosurgery in the treatment of solitary cerebral metastases of small diameter. J Neurosurg 1999, 91: 35-43. 10.3171/jns.1999.91.1.0035View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shinoura N, Yamada R, Okamoto K, Nakamura O, Shitara N: Local recurrence of metastatic brain tumor after stereotactic radiosurgery or surgery plus radiation. J Neurooncol 2002, 60: 71-77. 10.1023/A:1020256721761View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rades D, Bohlen G, Pluemer A, Veninga T, Hanssens P, Dunst J, Schild SE: Stereotactic radiosurgery alone versus resection plus whole-brain radiotherapy for 1 or 2 brain metastases in recursive partitioning analysis class 1 and 2 patients. Cancer 2007, 109: 2515-2521. 10.1002/cncr.22729View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Muacevic A, Wowra B, Siefert A, Tonn JC, Steiger HJ, Kreth FW: Microsurgery plus whole brain irradiation versus Gamma Knife surgery alone for treatment of single metastases to the brain: a randomized controlled multicentre phase III trial. J Neurooncol 2008, 87: 299-307. 10.1007/s11060-007-9510-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rades D, Kueter JD, Pluemer A, Veninga T, Schild SE: A matched-pair analysis comparing whole-brain radiotherapy plus stereotactic radiosurgery versus surgery plus whole-brain radiotherapy and a boost to the metastatic site for one or two brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73: 1077-1081. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.035View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Firlik KS, Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, Lunsford LD: Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases from breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2000, 7: 333-338. 10.1007/s10434-000-0333-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, Manikhas A, Lluch A, Tjulandin S, Zambetti M, Vazquez F, Byakhow M, Lichinitser M, Climent MA, Ciruelos E, Ojeda B, Mansutti M, Bozhok A, Baronio R, Feyereislova A, Barton C, Valagussa P, Baselga J: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet 2010, 375: 377-384. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61964-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Herbst RS, Sun Y, Eberhardt WE, Germonpré P, Saijo N, Zhou C, Wang J, Li L, Kabbinavar F, Ichinose Y, Qin S, Zhang L, Biesma B, Heymach JV, Langmuir P, Kennedy SJ, Tada H, Johnson BE: Vandetanib plus docetaxel versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ZODIAC): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010, 11: 619-626. 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70132-7PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Miles DW, Chan A, Dirix LY, Cortés J, Pivot X, Tomczak P, Delozier T, Soh JH, Provencher L, Puglisi F, Harbeck N, Steger GG, Schneeweiss A, Wardley AM, Chlistalla A, Romieu G: Phase III study of bevacizumab plus docetaxel compared with placebo plu docetaxel for the first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28: 3239-3247. 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6457View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P, Ramlau R, Gorbounova V, Hirsh V, Leighl N, Mezger J, Archer V, Moore N, Manegold C, BO17704 Study Group: Overall survival with cisplatin-gemcitabine and bevacizumab or placebo as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised phase III trial(AVAiL). Ann Oncol 1770, 21: 1804-1809.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Takeda K, Hida T, Sato T, Ando M, Seto T, Satouchi M, Ichinose Y, Katakami N, Yamamoto N, Kudoh S, Sasaki J, Matsui K, Takayama K, Kashii T, Iwamoto Y, Sawa T, Okamoto I, Kurata T, Nakagawa K, Fukuoka M: Randomized phase III trial of platinum-doublet chemotherapy followed by gefitinib compared with continued platinum-doublet chemotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a west Japan thoracic oncology group trial (WJTOG0203). J Clin Oncol 2010, 28: 753-760. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.3445View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Noel G, Bollet MA, Noel S, Feuvret L, Boisserie G, Tep B, Delattre JY, Baillet F, Ambroise Valery C, Cornu P, Mazeron JJ: Linac stereotactic radiosurgery: an effective and safe treatment for elderly patients with brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 63: 1555-1561. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.04.037View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim SH, Weil RJ, Chao ST, Toms SA, Angelov L, Vogelbaum MA, Suh JH, Barnett GH: Stereotactic radiosurgical treatment of brain metastases in older patients. Cancer 2008, 113: 834-840. 10.1002/cncr.23625View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.