Search

Postoperative management of lower grade gliomas (grade 2 and 3) is heterogeneous. The American Radium Society's brain malignancies panel systematically reviewed and evaluated the literature to develop consensus guidelines addressing timing of postoperative therapy, monotherapy versus combined modality therapy, type of chemotherapy used with radiotherapy, and radiotherapy dose. Thirty-six studies were included. Using consensus methodology (modified Delphi), the panel voted upon representative case variants using a 9-point appropriateness scale to address key questions. Voting results were collated to develop summarized recommendations. Following gross-total surgical resection, close surveillance is appropriate for well-selected grade 2, IDH-mutant oligodendrogliomas or astrocytomas with low-risk features. For grade 2 gliomas with high-risk features or any grade 3 glioma, immediate adjuvant therapy is recommended. When postoperative therapy is administered, radiation and planned chemotherapy is strongly recommended over monotherapy. For grade 2 and 3 IDH-mutant oligodendrogliomas and astrocytomas, either adjunctive PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine) or temozolomide is appropriate. For grade 3 IDH-mutant astrocytomas, radiotherapy followed by temozolomide is strongly recommended. The recommended radiotherapy dose for grade 2 gliomas is 45-54 Gy/1.8-2.0 Gy, and for grade 3 gliomas is 59.4-60 Gy/1.8-2.0 Gy. While multiple appropriate treatment options exist, these consensus recommendations provide an evidence-based framework to approach postoperative management of lower grade gliomas.

Background Prediction of early progression in glioblastoma may provide an opportunity to personalize treatment. Simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MRI offers quantitative estimates of diffusion and perfusion metrics. We investigated whether these metrics, during chemoradiation, could predict treatment outcome. Methods 38 patients with newly diagnosed IDH-wildtype glioblastoma undergoing 6-week/30-fraction chemoradiation had standardized post-operative MRIs at baseline (radiation planning), and at the 10th and 20th fractions. Non-overlapping T1-enhancing (T1C) and non-enhancing T2-FLAIR hyperintense regions were independently segmented. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCT1C, ADCT2-FLAIR) and perfusion fraction (fT1C, fT2-FLAIR) maps were generated with simplified IVIM modelling. Parameters associated with progression before or after 6.9 months (early vs late progression, respectively), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were investigated. Results Higher ADCT2-FLAIR at baseline [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.06, 95% CI 1.01–1.15, p = 0.025], lower fT2-FLAIR at fraction 10 (OR = 2.11, 95% CI 1.04–4.27, p = 0.018), and lack of increase in ADCT2-FLAIR at fraction 20 compared to baseline (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.02–1.22, p = 0.02) were associated with early progression. Combining ADCT2-FLAIR at baseline, fT2-FLAIR at fraction 10, ECOG and MGMT promoter methylation status significantly improved AUC to 90.3% compared to a model with only ECOG and MGMT promoter methylation status (p = 0.001). Using multivariable analysis, neither IVIM metrics were associated with OS but higher fT2-FLAIR at fraction 10 (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.56–0.95, p = 0.018) was associated with longer PFS. Conclusion ADCT2-FLAIR at baseline, its lack of increase from baseline to fraction 20, or fT2-FLAIR at fraction 10 significantly predicted early progression. fT2-FLAIR at fraction 10 was associated with PFS.

Background and purpose To perform a systematic review/meta-analysis of outcomes for patients with spinal metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (either single-fraction (SF-SRS) or multiple-fraction (MF-SRS)) or conventional radiotherapy (RT). Materials and methods Thirty-seven studies were identified. Primary outcomes were 1-year local control (LC) and acute/late grade 3–5 toxicities (including vertebral compression fractures (VCF)). Weighted random effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird methods and meta-regressions were conducted to characterize and compare effect sizes. Mixed effects regression models were used in dose analyses. Results A total of 3237 patients with 4911 lesions were included; 43.8%, 19.7%, and 36.5% of lesions received SF-SRS, MF-SRS, or RT, respectively. SF-SRS resulted in improved 1-year LC (92.9% (95% CI: 86.4–97.4%); p = 0.007) compared to RT (81.0% (95% CI: 69.2–90.5%)) with no difference between MF-SRS (82.1%; p = 0.86) and RT. On subgroup analysis of de novo metastases, superior 1-year LC following SF-SRS (95.5% (95% CI: 87.4–99.6%)) was maintained compared to RT (83.6% (95% CI: 70.4–93.5%); p = 0.007). A 4.7% increase in LC was noted for each 10 Gy10 increase in biologically effective dose (BED10, assuming an alpha/beta = 10) with SRS (p Conclusion SF-SRS resulted in superior LC with a roughly 5% LC benefit for every 10 Gy10 increase in BED10 with higher VCF rates compared to MF-SRS. If LC is the goal of treatment, then SRS may be a preferred treatment modality. However, these results are hypothesis-generating, and prospective randomized clinical trials are indicated to definitively address the question of whether SRS results in improved LC compared to RT.

Background and purpose We aimed to investigate the suitability of treating patients with single brain metastases using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with the MRL and to characterize the dosimetric impact at tissue-air interfaces resulting primarily from the electron return effect (ERE). Material and methods 24 patients treated for intact single brain metastases were analyzed. Three radiotherapy plans with the same prescribed dose were generated for each case: (1) noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), (2) coplanar step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on the MRL in the absence (MRLB=0), and (3) in the presence of the transverse magnetic field (MRLB=1.5). The plans were evaluated using cumulative dose–volume histograms and by calculation of Paddick conformity index (CI), V100%, V12Gy minus gross tumor volume (V12Gy – GTV), and V2Gy. At tissue-air boundaries, the dosimetric impact of the magnetic field was quantified using a 5 mm rim of tissue. Results All plans met the target coverage and organs-at-risk planning objectives. Differences between all investigated dosimetric parameters significantly favored the VMAT plans as compared to the MRLB=0 and MRLB=1.5 plans, except for V2Gy. The mean V12Gy – GTV and V2Gy marginally favored the MRLB=0 plans compared to the MRLB=1.5 plans (mean difference: 0.45 cm3, p = 0.0019 and 16.46 cm3, p Conclusions It is feasible to generate stereotactic radiation plans that satisfy clinical requirements using the MRL in the setting of single brain metastases. The dosimetric impact of the magnetic field including the ERE at tissue-air boundaries is minor and does not negatively impact target conformity or dose gradient.

Radiosurgery has a long history in Canada. Since the treatment of the first patient at the McGill University Health Center in 1985, radiosurgery programs have been developed from coast to coast. These have included multidisciplinary teams of radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, medical physicists, radiation technologists and other health professionals. In 2008, the CARO Board of Directors requested that a working group be formed to define the role of the radiation oncologist in the practice of radiosurgery. Taking into account evolving technology, changing clinical practice and current scope of practice literature, the working group made recommendations as to the role of the radiation oncologists. These recommendations were endorsed by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology board of directors in September 2009 and are present herein. It is recognized that patients benefit from a team approach to their care but it is recommended that qualified radiation oncologists be involved in radiosurgery delivery from patient consultation to follow-up. In addition, radiation oncologists should continue to be involved in the administrative aspects of radiosurgery programs, from equipment selection to ongoing quality assurance/quality improvement.