Search

Background: We retrospectively investigate feasibility and safety of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) including a simultaneous-integrated boost technique (WBRT-SIB) in a cohort of patients with a very poor prognosis suffering from multiple and/or large brain metastases, unfavorable primary histology, poor performance status and/or symptomatic BMs. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients with high brain tumor burden, extracranial metastases and low life-expectancy were treated with WBRT-SIB mostly with 35-42 Gy/14 fractions. All metastases were boosted in patients with up to 12 BMs. In patients with > 12 BM, large and/or small metastases in critical brain regions were boosted up to a maximum of 12 SIB volumes. Results: The median number of BM was 8 (range 2–45) and the median BM diameter was 12 mm (range 4–90 mm). Fifteen (43%) patients had ≥ 10 BMs and 25 patients presented with a Karnofski index ≤ 80%. Primary tumor histology was NSCLC (n = 13), SCLC (n = 11), breast cancer (n = 7), melanoma (n = 2), other (n = 2). The median iPFS was not reached, and 12- and 18-months iPFS were 75% and 50%, respectively. Overall, seven patients had intracranial progression: two patients within the SIB and WBRT area, one patient only within the SIB region and four patients had new BMs in the WBRT volume alone. The median iPFS for non-SCLC patients was 17 months and the 12- and 18-month iPFS were 56.8% and 28.4%, respectively. There was no significant OS difference between SCLC-group and non-SCLC patients (p = 0.38). Overall, median OS was 8.7 months and 1-year OS was 25%. The treatment was generally well-tolerated with no observed cases of radionecrosis. Conclusion: Our WBRT-SIB approach involves a combination of whole brain radiotherapy and a simultaneous integrated boost to specific tumor volumes, and its effectiveness is compared with other treatment modalities in the literature. Further research, including prospective studies with larger patient cohorts, is necessary to validate and refine the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Retinal artery occlusions lead to sudden, painless vision loss, affecting millions globally. Despite their significance, treatment strategies remain unestablished, contrasting with acute ischemic stroke (AIS), where IVT has proven efficacy. Similar to AIS, retinal artery occlusions demand urgent evaluation and treatment, reflecting the principle "time is retina". Even for patients with transient monocular vision loss, also known as amaurosis fugax (AF), pertinent guidelines meanwhile recommend immediate emergency assessment in a specialized facility. However, data on the clinical benefit and comparability with persistent occlusions are missing. This study aimed to compare the results of a comprehensive stroke-workup among patients with persistent retinal artery occlusions (RAO), including both central retinal (CRAO) and branch retinal artery occlusion (BRAO) and those with AF. Methods: Conducted at the University Hospital Giessen, Germany, this exploratory cross-sectional study enrolled patients with transient or permanent unilateral vision loss of non-arteritic origin. The primary outcome were differences between the two groups RAO and AF with regard to cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities, vascular and pharmacological interventions and clinical neurological and ophthalmological outcomes. Secondary outcome was a sub-group analysis of patients receiving IVT. Results: Out of 166 patients assessed, 76 with RAO and 40 with AF met the inclusion criteria. Both groups exhibited comparable age, gender distribution, and cardiovascular risk profiles. Notably, RAO patients did not show significantly more severe vascular comorbidities than AF patients. However, AF patients received vascular interventions more frequently. Pharmacological intervention rates were similar across groups. RAO patients had slightly worse neurological outcomes, and IVT did not yield favorable ophthalmological outcomes within any observed patients. Conclusion: The study found similar vascular burden and risk factors in patients with RAO and AF, with implications for clinical workflows. IVT for RAO may only be effective in very early treatment windows. This emphasizes the need for public awareness and collaborative protocols between ophthalmologists and neurologists to improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]