Bruce E. Pollock

IMPORTANCE: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) significantly improves tumor control in the brain after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), yet because of its association with cognitive decline, its role in the treatment of patients with brain metastases remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is less cognitive deterioration at 3 months after SRS alone vs SRS plus WBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: At 34 institutions in North America, patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases were randomized to receive SRS or SRS plus WBRT between February 2002 and December 2013. INTERVENTIONS: The WBRT dose schedule was 30 Gy in 12 fractions; the SRS dose was 18 to 22 Gy in the SRS plus WBRT group and 20 to 24 Gy for SRS alone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was cognitive deterioration (decline >1 SD from baseline on at least 1 cognitive test at 3 months) in participants who completed the baseline and 3-month assessments. Secondary end points included time to intracranial failure, quality of life, functional independence, long-term cognitive status, and overall survival. RESULTS: There were 213 randomized participants (SRS alone, n = 111; SRS plus WBRT, n = 102) with a mean age of 60.6 years (SD, 10.5 years); 103 (48%) were women. There was less cognitive deterioration at 3 months after SRS alone (40/63 patients [63.5%]) than when combined with WBRT (44/48 patients [91.7%]; difference, -28.2%; 90% CI, -41.9% to -14.4%; P < .001). Quality of life was higher at 3 months with SRS alone, including overall quality of life (mean change from baseline, -0.1 vs -12.0 points; mean difference, 11.9; 95% CI, 4.8-19.0 points; P = .001). Time to intracranial failure was significantly shorter for SRS alone compared with SRS plus WBRT (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < .001). There was no significant difference in functional independence at 3 months between the treatment groups (mean change from baseline, -1.5 points for SRS alone vs -4.2 points for SRS plus WBRT; mean difference, 2.7 points; 95% CI, -2.0 to 7.4 points; P = .26). Median overall survival was 10.4 months for SRS alone and 7.4 months for SRS plus WBRT (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.38; P = .92). For long-term survivors, the incidence of cognitive deterioration was less after SRS alone at 3 months (5/11 [45.5%] vs 16/17 [94.1%]; difference, -48.7%; 95% CI, -87.6% to -9.7%; P = .007) and at 12 months (6/10 [60%] vs 17/18 [94.4%]; difference, -34.4%; 95% CI, -74.4% to 5.5%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases, the use of SRS alone, compared with SRS combined with WBRT, resulted in less cognitive deterioration at 3 months. In the absence of a difference in overall survival, these findings suggest that for patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases amenable to radiosurgery, SRS alone may be a preferred strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00377156.

OBJECTIVE: The best management for patients with small- to medium-sized vestibular schwannomas (VS) is controversial. METHODS: : A prospective cohort study of 82 patients with unilateral, unoperated VS less than 3 cm undergoing surgical resection (n = 36) or radiosurgery (n = 46). Patients undergoing resection were younger (48.2 yr versus 53.9 yr, P = 0.03). The groups were similar with regard to hearing loss, associated symptoms, and tumor size. The mean follow-up period was 42 months (range, 12-62 mo). RESULTS: Normal facial movement and preservation of serviceable hearing was more frequent in the radiosurgical group at 3 months (P < 0.001), 1 year (P < 0.001), and at the last follow-up examination (P < 0.01) compared with the surgical resection group. Patients undergoing surgical resection had a significant decline in the following subscales of the Health Status Questionnaire 3 months after surgery: physical functioning (P = 0.006), role-physical (P < 0.001), energy/fatigue (P = 0.02), and overall physical component (P = 0.004). Patients in the surgical resection group continued to have a significant decline in the physical functioning (P = 0.04) and bodily pain (P = 0.04) subscales at 1 year and in bodily pain (P = 0.02) at the last follow-up examination. The radiosurgical group had no decline on any component of the Health Status Questionnaire after the procedure. The radiosurgical group had lower mean Dizziness Handicap Inventory scores (16.5 versus 8.4, P = 0.02) at the last follow-up examination. There was no difference in tumor control (100 versus 96%, P = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Early outcomes were better for VS patients undergoing stereotactic radiosurgery compared with surgical resection (Level 2 evidence). Unless long-term follow-up evaluation shows frequent tumor progression at currently used radiation doses, radiosurgery should be considered the best management strategy for the majority of VS patients.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical and angiographic variables that affect the results of arteriovenous malformation (AVM) radiosurgery and to propose a new method of reporting patient outcomes after AVM radiosurgery. This method incorporates both the obliteration status of the AVMs and the postoperative neurological condition of the patient. METHODS: Patient outcomes were defined as excellent (nidus obliteration and no new deficits), good (nidus obliteration with a new minor deficit), fair (nidus obliteration with a new major deficit), unchanged (incomplete nidus obliteration without a new deficit), poor (incomplete nidus obliteration with any new deficit), and dead. Two hundred twenty patients who underwent AVM radiosurgery at our center before 1992 were subjected to a multivariate analysis with patient outcomes as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis determined four factors associated with successful AVM radiosurgery: smaller AVM volume (P=0.003), number of draining veins (P=0.001), younger patient age (P=0.0003), and hemispheric AVM location (P=0.002). Preradiosurgical embolization was a negative predictor of successful AVM radiosurgery (P=0.02). CONCLUSION: AVM obliteration without new neurological deficits can be achieved in at least 80% of patients with small volume, hemispheric AVMs after single-session AVM radiosurgery. Future studies on AVM radiosurgery should report patient outcomes in a fashion that incorporates all the factors involved in successful AVM radiosurgery.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) have an overall 2% to 4% annual risk of hemorrhage. The purpose of this study was to determine whether specific clinical and radiographic factors predispose AVMs to bleed and to predict the bleeding risk for individual AVM patients. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical histories and cerebral angiograms of 315 AVM patients who underwent stereotactic radiosurgery at our center. One half of the patient data (analysis cohort) was used to determine risk factors for bleeding and to construct AVM hemorrhage risk groups. These risk groups were then tested with the second half of the patient data (test cohort). RESULTS: The mean AVM volume was 4.0 +/- 3.4 mL (approximate maximum diameter of 2 cm). One hundred ninety-six initial hemorrhages occurred in 10,348 patient-years for an annual initial bleed rate of 1.89%; 44 of these 196 patients had a repeat bleed in 591 patient-years for an annual rebleed rate of 7.45%. The overall crude annual hemorrhage rate was 2.40%. Multivariate analysis revealed three factors associated with hemorrhage: history of a prior bleed (relative risk [RR], 9.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.44 to 15.19; P < .001), a single draining vein (RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.38; P < .01), and a diffuse AVM morphology (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.46; P < .01). Four AVM hemorrhage risk groups were constructed on the basis of the significant factors. The annual rate of bleeding was 0.99% for low-risk AVMs, 2.22% for intermediate-low-risk AVMs, 3.72% for intermediate-high-risk AVMs, and 8.94% for high-risk AVMs. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of a large group of AVM patients who underwent stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated that small AVMs have an annual hemorrhage risk similar to that of the general AVM population. AVM patients have a wide variability of bleeding risk that can be predicted from their clinical presentation and the angiographic characteristics of the AVM. The management of AVM patients should be based not only on the morbidity of the proposed treatment but also those factors that predispose individual patients to either a low or high hemorrhage risk.