Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Radiation Therapy of Skull Base Meningiomas: Proposal of a Grading SystemDe Salles A.A.F. · Frighetto L. · Grande C.V. · Solberg T.D. · Cabatan-Awang C. · Selch M.T. · Wallace R. · Ford J.
Division of Neurosurgery and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif., USA
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Objective: The development of a grading system to guide treatment selection, and predict treatment difficulty and outcome of skull base meningiomas infiltrating the cavernous sinus which are managed by stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), based on an 8-year experience with stereotactic radiation of skull base meningiomas. Methods: T1 gadoliniun-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of 40 patients with skull base meningiomas, with or without prior surgery, who underwent radiosurgery or stereotactic radiation therapy from 1991 to 1998 at the UCLA Medical Center were reviewed, and the result of treatment was related to the tumor grade. Grade was based on tumor infiltration of the cavernous sinus and extension into adjacent structures. Treatment was performed with a linac-based system. The dose prescribed to the periphery of the tumor for SRS patients (n = 34) ranged from 12 to 22 Gy, and the maximum dose delivered to the tumor ranged from 24 to 46 Gy. SRT (n = 6). Treatment was planned using a single isocenter, usually prescribed to the 90% isodose volume, bringing the fractionation scheme to the maximal tolerance of the optic apparatus. The periphery dose ranged from 24 to 46 Gy with a maximum dose of 45 to 51 Gy. Clinical and MRI follow-up was performed every six months for the first 3 years and every year thereafter. Results: Grade I meningiomas were restricted to the cavernous sinus (n = 12). Grade II cavernous sinus meningiomas extended to the clivus and/or the petrous bone, without compression of the brainstem (n = 9). Grade III meningiomas had superior and/or anterior extension with compression of the optic nerve or tract (n = 9). Grade IV tumors compressed the brain stem (n = 8), and Grade V were bilateral lesions (n = 2). Tumor control rates were 90% for Grade I, 86% for Grade II, 86% for Grade III, 42% for Grade IV and no control for tumors Grade V. Complications were not related to tumor grade. Conclusion: This grading system correlated with outcome and difficulty in planning radiosurgery. Failure of treatment was more likely to occur in patients with higher Grade tumors.
© 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.