Salvage Resection and Intracranial Cesium-131 Brachytherapy for Brain Tumors
Management of progressive brain tumors following high dose radiotherapy is controversial. In select cases, surgical resection can provide rapid relief of regional mass effect and edema, and highly focal adjuvant re-irradiation can be administered in the form of brachytherapy. Permanent low-dose rate...
Saved in:
Published in | International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics Vol. 111; no. 3; pp. e564 - e565 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Elsevier Inc
01.11.2021
|
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Management of progressive brain tumors following high dose radiotherapy is controversial. In select cases, surgical resection can provide rapid relief of regional mass effect and edema, and highly focal adjuvant re-irradiation can be administered in the form of brachytherapy. Permanent low-dose rate cesium-131 brachytherapy may offer dosimetric and radiobiologic advantages over other isotopes. The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of intracranial cesium-131 brachytherapy after surgical resection in a heavily pre-treated patient cohort.
A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients treated with intraoperative intracranial cesium-131 brachytherapy from an institutional database. Treatment consisted of maximal safe resection followed by implantation of suture-stranded cesium-131 seeds, maintaining approximately 10mm spacing between seeds, with a planned target dose of 80 Gy to 5mm depth. Local failure was defined as recurrence in or contacting the resection cavity after salvage resection and brachytherapy. Regional failure was defined as recurrence within 10mm of the resection cavity. Recurrence was defined as a new lesion or growth of ≥25% in any axial dimension on interval MRI. Toxicity was collected based on CTCAE 4.0.
A total of 35 patients with a median imaging follow up of 17.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 9.7-25.9) underwent 41 consecutive cesium-131 implants between 2016 and 2020. 20 patients (59%; N = 22 implants) were treated for recurrent brain metastasis, 12 patients (34%; N = 16 implants) were treated for recurrent atypical (N = 8) or anaplastic meningioma (N = 4), and 3 patients (9%) were treated for recurrent glioma (N = 2) or hemangiopericytoma (N = 1). A majority of lesions had received prior surgery (N = 28, 66.7%, range 0-3 prior surgeries) and 34 patients had received prior high dose radiation. 34 of 41 (82.9%) tumors had received prior radiosurgery, and 12 (29.2%) had undergone prior external beam radiation (range 50-60 Gy). 17 of 41 lesions (41.5%) had radiologic evidence of adverse radiation/treatment effect (ARE) prior to salvage therapy. Median tumor size was 3.0cm (IQR 2.3-3.7). Overall actuarial local/loco-regional control at 1-year was 91.6%/84.7% (89.8%/88.9% for metastases and 100%/82.5% for meningiomas). Crude loco-regional control was 86.3% for metastases, 75% for meningiomas, and 66.7% for other lesions. Symptomatic ARE following treatment was observed in 9.8% (N = 4) resection cavities. The surgical complication rate was 14.6% (N = 6 total, N = 3 [7.3%] grade 3-5) including 1 peri-operative death.
Cesium-131 brachytherapy in this heavily pre-treated cohort resulted in good local control and an acceptable rate of symptomatic adverse radiation effect and toxicity and may be a reasonable treatment option for this select population.
W.C. Chen: None. M. Lafreniere: None. C. Phuong: None. M. Lometti: None. O. Morin: None. B.P. Ziemer: None. H. Vasudevan: Research Grant; Children's Tumor Foundation. Patent/License Fees/Copyright; Genentech, Eli Lilly. S. Hervey-Jumper: None. P.V. Theodosopoulos: None. S. Magill: None. S.E. Fogh: Independent Contractor; Accuray. J.L. Nakamura: None. L. Boreta: None. P.K. Sneed: None. M.W. McDermott: Chair; Miami Baptist. D. Raleigh: None. S.E. Braunstein: Advisory Board; Radiation Oncology Questions, LLC. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0360-3016 1879-355X |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1526 |