Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Neuro-Oncology 1/2023

Open Access 16.10.2023 | Review

Single-fraction radiosurgery outcomes for large vestibular schwannomas in the upfront or post-surgical setting: a systematic review and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) Practice Guidelines

verfasst von: Constantin Tuleasca, Rupesh Kotecha, Arjun Sahgal, Antonio de Salles, Laura Fariselli, Ian Paddick, Bruce E. Pollock, Jean Régis, Jason Sheehan, John H. Suh, Shoji Yomo, Marc Levivier

Erschienen in: Journal of Neuro-Oncology | Ausgabe 1/2023

Abstract

Purpose

To perform a systematic review of literature specific to single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for large vestibular schwannomas (VS), maximum diameter ≥ 2.5 cm and/or classified as Koos Grade IV, and to present consensus recommendations on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS).

Methods

The Medline and Embase databases were used to apply the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach. We considered eligible prospective and retrospective studies, written in the English language, reporting treatment outcomes for large VS; SRS for large post-operative tumors were analyzed in aggregate and separately.

Results

19 of the 229 studies initially identified met the final inclusion criteria. Overall crude rate of tumor control was 89% (93.7% with no prior surgery vs 87.7% with prior surgery). Rates of salvage microsurgical resection, need for shunt, and additional SRS in all series versus those with no prior surgery were 9.6% vs 3.3%, 4.7% vs 6.4% and 1% vs 0.9%, respectively. Rates of facial palsy and hearing preservation in all series versus those with no prior surgery were 1.3% vs 3.4% and 34.2% vs 40.4%, respectively.

Conclusions

Upfront SRS resulted in high rates of tumor control with acceptable rates of facial palsy and hearing preservation as compared to the results in those series including patients with prior surgery (level C evidence). Therefore, although large VS are considered classic indication for microsurgical resection, upfront SRS can be considered in selected patients and we recommend a prescribed marginal dose from 11 to 13 Gy (level C evidence).
Hinweise
Arjun Sahgal, Marc Levivier and Shoji Yomo are equal contributors as senior authors. (in the original version we placed an AND between Marc Levivier and Shoji Yomo which doesn't appear, that is why I added this; if you can place an AND between them, there is no need anymore)
Disclaimer: These guidelines should not be considered inclusive of all methods of care or exclusive of other methods or care reasonably directed to obtain similar results. The physician must make the ultimate judgment depending on characteristics and circumstances of individual patients. Adherence to this guideline will not ensure successful treatment in every situation. The authors of this guideline and the International Society of Stereotactic Radiosurgery assume no liability for the information, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a widely accepted treatment for small to medium sized vestibular schwannomas (Koos grades I, II and III) [1, 2]. However, for large vestibular schwannoma (VS), using a definitional threshold of ≥ 2.5 cm or Koos Grade IV designation, most recommend microsurgical resection [3]. In particular, surgery should be considered when there are signs and symptoms of mass effect related to brainstem compression, cranial nerve (CN) neuropathy (other than CN VIII and particularly CN V), and/or presence of hydrocephalus [4]. Importantly, a wait and scan strategy is usually not recommended due to the possibility of life-threatening complications associated with tumor progression [5].
For a patient with a large VS who is not an optimal candidate for microsurgical resection, some type of fractionated radiation therapy is typically recommended. However, several centers have treated these patients with single fraction SRS, as they would do for smaller VS [6, 7]. Concerns of single-fraction SRS in these patients range from development of serious adverse radiation events (ARE), transient-tumor-expansion (TTE, also referred to as pseudoprogression), delayed time-to-response for patients who have symptomatic hydrocephalus, and late treatment failure necessitating surgery which may put the patient at an increased risk of surgical complications [8]. To date, there has yet to be a critical review of the published literature specific to this population to define efficacy and toxicity of this approach. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the current literature specific to single fraction SRS for large VS, and provide treatment recommendations on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) Guidelines Committee.

Methods

Systematic review

A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach [9].

Search strategy

A search strategy evaluated the Medline and Embase databases to search for articles published from 1968 to June 2022. The following MESH terms or combination of those were used either in title/abstract: “radiosurgery” AND “vestibular schwannomas” AND “large” OR “Koos IV.”

Inclusion criteria

We included prospective and retrospective studies, written in the English language, reporting patients treated for a large VS with either upfront single fractions SRS or those treated with single fraction SRS following surgery to a residual or recurrent tumor. We abstracted data for large VS based on those tumors with a maximum diameter ≥ 2.5 cm and/or classified as Koos Grade IV (large tumors with brainstem and cranial nerve displacement) [10].
We initially identified 229 studies, of which after screening abstracts, 120 were excluded (Fig. 1). The remaining 109 studies were further screened with a detailed review of the published manuscript. We retained only those 19 articles that met our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria[6, 8, 1126]. 6/19 reported outcomes in patients who had not been previously resected[11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 28], and the remaining 13/19 studies included patients with prior surgical resection[6, 8, 1214, 1618, 21, 22, 25, 26]. Of note, the multicenter study by Pikis et al.[28] was kept in our analysis given the large number of cases and updated patient outcome information, despite potential overlap with single institution studies from those centers participating in the multicenter cohort. Demographic data are summarized in Table 1, and Table 2 summarizes dosimetric statistics and target volumes.
Table 1
Basic demographic data
 
Year
Criteria
Patients (tumors)
NF 2
Prior microsurgery
Follow-up (months)
Mean (median; range)
Male: Female
Age (years)
Mean (median; range)
Series including patients with prior surgery
 Inoue et al
2005
 > 3 cm
18 (20)
2/20
11/20
 > 72
6:12
33–81
 Chung et al
2010
 > 3 cm
21
0/21
14/21
66 (53; 12–155)
9:12
 Yang et al
2011
 > 3cm
median 9 mL
65
0/65
17/65
− (36; 1–146)
37:28
51 (19–89)
 Zeiler et al
2012
3–4 cm
28
2/28
12/28
34.5 (-; 6–99)
13:12
− (56; 26–85)
 Williams et al
2013
 > 3 cm
24
0/24
9/24
− (48.5;7–211)
16:8
61.5 (62; 32–87)
 Iorio-Morin et al
2016
 > 4 mL
68
0/68
13/68
− (47; 6–125)
1.4:1
− (58; 16–85)
 Lefranc et al
2018
Koos IV
86
0/86
14/86
74.4 (-; 36–192)
0.4:0.6
54.6 (23–84)
 Huang et al
2018
 > 3 cm & > 10 Ml
35
0/35
9/35
− (48; 6–156)
20:15
49.7 (-; 21–74)
 Watanabe et al
2019
 > 8 cc
19
0/19
9/19
− (98; 49–204)
8:11
− (71;29–91)
 Stastna et al
2020
 > 4 mL
73
0/73
4/73
− (66; 25.2–177.6)
29:44
− (61;23–84)
 Mezey et al
2020
 > 10 mL
103
0/103
18/103
74.4(-; 1.2–226.8)
46:57
61.5(-;20–88)
 Hasegawa et al
2021
Koos IV
203
0/203
153/203
− (152; 12–277)
86:117
− (58;13–83)
 Umekawa et al
2022
Koos IV
50
0/50
22/50
63(63;24–178)
57(-;28–86)
Series excluding patients with prior surgery
 Van de Langenberg
2011
 > 6 mL, BS indent
33
0/33
0/33
− (30; 12–72)
15:18
54.8 (30–83)
 Milligan et al
2012
 > 2.5 cm
22
0/22
0/22
− (66; 26–121)
13:9
61 ± 15
 Bailo et al
2016
 > 25 mm
59
0/59
0/59
74.9 (79;36–164)
21:38
63.8 (-; 24–85)
 Huo et al
2020
 > 3.5 mL
19
0/19
0/19
28.7
10:9
57(-;38–73)
 Ogino et al
2020
 > 5 mL
170
0/170
0/170
− (61.2; 4.8–296.4)
93:77
− (61;21.1–39)
 Pikis et al
2022
median 8.7 mL
627
0/627
0/627
Median 36
283:344
Median 54 (-; –-)
Table 2
Dose, target volume, local control and further surgical, shunt and/or SRS intervention
 
Dose (Gy)
Mean (median; range)
TV mean (median; range)
Radiological:
Overall control; stable volume; decrease
Further surgery, SRS or shunt (time point if given)
Series including patients with prior surgery
 Inoue et al
10 (4/20); 11 (2/20); 12 (14/20)
15.2 (-; 5.3–28.5)
14/15; 6/15; 8/15
Resection: 1/15 resection (2 years after)
 Chung et al
11.9 (12; 11–14)
17.3 (17.1; 12.7–25.2)
18/21; 17/21; 1/21
Resection: 2/21 (8 and 72 months after)
Shunt: 2/21 (7, 17 months after)
Omaya: 1/21 (11 months after)
 Yang et al
− (12;11–15)
9 (-;5–22)
58/65; 18/65; 38/65
Resection: 7/65 (2 at 6 months and 5 at 2.5 years)
Shunt: 3/65
 Zeiler et al
12.5 (-;12–13)
9.7 (-; 6.9–10.6)
23/25; 9/25; 14/25
Resection: 1/25
Shunt: 3/25 (5, 11 and 24 months after)
 Williams et al
− (11; 8–20)
− (9.5; 3.1–24.7)
16/18; 6/18; 10/18
Resection: 3/24 (at a mean of 46 months (6–102) after)
SRS: 3/24
Shunt: 2/24
 Iorio-Morin et al
12 (-;11–13)
-(7.4; 4–19)
64/68
Resection: 3/68 (4, 13, 36 months after)
Shunt: 3/68
 Lefranc et al
11(-; 10–12)
4.46 (-; 1.38–8.69)
78/86; 26/86; 60/86
Resection: 7/86
Shunt: 1/86
 Huang et al
− (11;10–12)
− (14.8;10.3–24.5)
30/35; 5/35; 25/35
Resection: 5/35 (9 months-6 years after)
Cysto-peritoneal shunt: 2/35
 Watanabe et al
−  (12, 10–12) minimum
− (12;10–12)
− (11.5; 8–30.6)
15/19; 2/19; 13/19
Resection: 3/19 (2 surgeries and 1 combined)
Shunt: 3/19
 Stastna
− (12;11.5–12)
− (6.5; 4–14.2)
64/73; 3/73; 61/73
Resection: 6/73
SRS: 1/73
VP shunt: 4/73
Cystic puncture plus SRS: 1/73
 Mezey et al
12.5(-;12–18)
12.4(-;7.8–21.5)
81/103; 60/103; 21/103
Resection:17/103
Shunt: 13/103
Ventriculostomy: 2/103
 Hasegawa et al
−  (12;9–13)
− (6.7;2–28.9)
168/203; 34/203; 134/203
Resection: 35/203
SRS: 6/203
VP shunt: 6/203
 Umekawa et al
12(-;12–14)
5.3(-;4.1–6.8)
46/50
Resection: 2/50
Shunt: 2/50
Series excluding patients with prior surgery
 Van de Langenberg
12.6 (-; 12.5–13)
−  (8.8; 6.1–17.7)
29/33; 7/33; 22/33
Resection: 5/33 (combined)
SRS: 2/33 s
Shunt: 2/33 (6 and 12 months after)
 Milligan et al
− (12; 12–14)
− (9.4; 5.3–19.1)
18/22; 0/22; 18/22
Resection: 2/22 (median 32 (14–90) after)
Shunt: 2/22
 Bailo et al
− (13;11–15)
6.0 (5.6; 2.5–14.9)
25–30 mm vs > 30
54/59
Resection: 1/59 (48 months after)
Shunt: 10/59
 Huo et al
− (12.5;12–13.5)
− (4.06;3.5–6.99)
18/19
Resection: 1/19
Shunt: 3/19
 Ogino et al
− (12.5; 10.5–22)
− (7.4;5–20)
Actuarial rates (not numbers)
MS:7/170
SRS:1/170
Shunt:8/170 after a median 7.2 (1.3–32.7)
 Pikis et al
Median 12
Median 8.7
590/627; 299/627; 291/627
Resection:18/627
SRS and rhizotomy:1/627
SRS: 6/627
Cyst aspiration:1/627
Shunt: 7/627

Exclusion criteria

We excluded studies written in languages other than English, duplicate studies from the same author or institution, and studies reporting fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy outcomes[15]. Those reports identified in the initial search strategy that included combined outcomes with either SRS or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy were excluded if outcomes specific to the SRS cohort could not be segregated.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome for this analysis was the radiographic local tumor control rate, however, the definition of tumor control varied considerably amongst publications. As an example, Chung et al.[12] considered “tumor regression” if the post-treatment volume was less than 100% of the pre-SRS volume, “stable disease” if the post-treatment volume was within 100–110% of the pre-SRS volume, and “disease progression” if the post-treatment volume was > 110% of the pre-SRS volume. In the largest study by Pikis et al.[28], local failure was defined as an increase in the total VS volume of more than 20% at last follow-up, while decrease was defined as a reduction in tumor volume of more than 20% from baseline at the last radiological follow-up. Given the heterogeneity in the definition of local control across studies and to facilitate summary statistics, we defined radiological local control as stability or a decrease in tumor volume at last follow-up (regardless of the degree of tumor reduction). We also considered treatment failure in those patients with tumor enlargement. Further microsurgical interventions, surgical management of hydrocephalus, delivery of further SRS, cystic puncture etc., were noted for the adverse event analyses and not counted as a treatment failure (Table 2). Adverse clinical outcomes specific to CN toxicities were summarized separately.
Follow-up periods are illustrated in Table 1 and are heterogeneous.

Establishment of evidence based guidelines

The present systematic review has been performed by a group of international experts from a wide range of disciplines. Evidence was gathered from the primary literature. Recommendations, which are further summed, were made on the basis of this evidence and were graded in terms of their strength.

Results

Indication for SRS

Upfront SRS was considered by most authors for the following situations: (1) elderly patients, (2) lack of disabling symptoms, (3) presence of serviceable hearing, (4) comorbidities precluding candidacy for surgery, (5) and no symptomatic mass effect[11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 28].

Tumor control

Tumor control (stability or decrease)

The overall tumor control in all series was 89.0% (range 86.1–91.9%, I2 = 56.28%, p heterogeneity = 0.002, p < 0.001; Fig. 2a, upper part). The overall tumor control in series including patients with prior surgery was 87.7% (range 84.6–90.9%, I2 = 35.71%, p heterogeneity = 0.1, p < 0.001; Fig. 2a, middle part). The overall tumor control in series not including patients with prior surgery was 93.7% (range 91.9–95.4%, I2 = 0%, p heterogeneity = 0.4, p < 0.001; Fig. 2a, lower part).

Tumor stability

The overall tumor stability in all series was 29.7% (range, 17.7–41.7%, I2 = 96.56%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p < 0.001; Fig. 2b, upper part). The overall tumor stability in series including patients with prior surgery was 31.2% (range 18.7–43.8%, I2 = 94.33%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p < 0.001; Fig. 2b, middle part). The overall tumor stability in series not including patients with prior surgery was 23.8% (I2 = 98.75%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p = 0.16; Fig. 2b, lower part).

Tumor reduction

The overall tumor reduction in all series was observed in 57.0% (range 44.4–69.6%, I2 = 95.43%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p < 0.001; Fig. 2c, upper part). The overall tumor reduction in series including patients with prior surgery was 55.1% (range 37.8–72.3%, I2 = 96.16%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p < 0.001; Fig. 2c, middle part). The overall tumor reduction in series not including patients with prior surgery was 64.0% (40.9–87%, I2 = 91.0%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p < 0.001; Fig. 2c, lower part).

Transient-tumor-expansion (pseudoprogression)

TTE was inconsistently reported. Specifically, only 3/19[24] of the included studies described this outcome. One series reported a crude risk of 41% in 26 patients treated with a median time-to-onset of 8 months (range, 6–13)[17]. Regarding dosimetric predictors, in the series of Chung et al.[12] there was a significant correlation between the T2 signal ratio between tumor and brainstem and the duration of tumor swelling.

Post-SRS procedures

Salvage resection

The overall rate of further microsurgical resection in all series was 7.7% (range 5.3–10.1%, I2 = 69.2%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p < 0.001; Fig. 3, a, upper part). The overall rate of further microsurgical resection in series including patients with prior surgery was 9.6% (range 6.5–12.6%, I2 = 50.63%, p heterogeneity = 0.01, p < 0.001; Fig. 3, a, middle part). The overall rate of further microsurgical resection in series not including patients with prior surgery was 3.3% (range 1.7–4.9%, I2 = 18.37%, p heterogeneity = 0.29, p < 0.001; Fig. 3, a, lower part).

Post-SRS shunting for hydrocephalus

The overall rate of need for shunt in all series was 5.0% (range, 3.2–6.8%, I2 = 60.92%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p < 0.001; Fig. 3, b, upper part). The overall rate of further shunt placement in series including patients with prior surgery was 4.7% (range 2.7–6.6%, I2 = 36.07%, p heterogeneity = 0.09, p < 0.001; Fig. 3, b, middle part). The overall rate of further shunt placement in series not including patients with prior surgery was 6.4% (range 2–10.7%, I2 = 75.46%, p heterogeneity = 0.001, p < 0.001; Fig. 3, b, lower part).

Further salvage SRS

The overall rate of salvage SRS in all series was 1.0% (range, 0.5–1.4%, I2 = 0%, p heterogeneity = 0.16, p = 0.941; Fig. 3, c, upper part). The overall rate of further salvage SRS in series including patients with prior surgery was 2.6% (I2 = 41.68%, p heterogeneity = 0.18; Fig. 3, c, middle part). The overall rate of further salvage SRS in series not including patients with prior surgery was 1.0% (range 0.3–1.7%, I2 = 0%, p heterogeneity = 0.83, p = 0.004; Fig. 3, c, lower part).

Cranial nerve toxicities and hearing preservation

The overall rate of facial palsy in all series was 2.3% (range 1.2–3.4%, I2 = 54.47%, p heterogeneity = 0.003, p < 0.001; Fig. 4, a, upper part). The overall rate of new-onset facial palsy in series including patients with prior surgery was 1.3% (range 0.3–2.3%, I2 = 28.00%, p heterogeneity = 0.16, p = 0.01; Fig. 4, a, middle part). The overall rate of facial palsy in series not including patients with prior surgery was 3.4% (range 2.2–4.6%, I2 = 0%, p heterogeneity = 0.52, p < 0.001; Fig. 4, a, lower part).
The overall rate of hearing preservation in all series was 37.9% (range 21.6–54.3%, I2 = 95.96%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p < 0.001; Fig. 4, b, upper part). The overall rate of hearing preservation in series including patients with prior surgery was 34.2% (range 24.3–44.1%, I2 = 61.5%, p heterogeneity = 0.01, p < 0.001; Fig. 4, b, middle part). The overall rate of hearing preservation in series not including patients with prior surgery was 40.4% (7.0–73.9%, I2 = 98.39%, p heterogeneity < 0.001, p = 0.06; Fig. 4, b, lower part).Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarizes the outcomes.
Table 3
Clinical outcome (worsening or new relevant deficits)
 
Worsened facial palsy (preexisting)
New facial palsy /hemifacial spasm
Hearing preservation
Disturbance in balance
Other CN new deficit
Series including patients with prior surgery
 Inoue et al
0/9
0/9
4/5 up to 13 years
0/20
 Chung et al
0/21
0/21
5/21
1 case of malignant transformation
1 case of cerebellar infarction
 Yang et al
1/65 HB II at 6 months
18/22
4/65 sensory dysfunction
 Zeiler et al
1/25 worsening hemifacial spasm
7/28 (temporary)
2/25 sensory dysfunction
 Williams et al
2/24
6/24 worsening of preexisting
3/11 worsened sensory dysfunction
 Iorio-Morin et al
0/68
8/68
4/68 sensory dysfunction
 Lefranc et al
0/86
25/38
 Huang et al
0/7
0/28
1/3
 Watanabe et al
0/7
0/6
2/19 transient trigeminal neuropathy
 Stastna
3/73 (stated as worsened of preexistent or new)
11/27
6/73 facial paresthesias
5/73 trigeminal neuralgia
 Mezey et al
3/103
3/103 facial palsy
5/103 hemifacial spasm
12/103
6/103 facial paresthesias
3/103 trigeminal neuralgia
 Hasegawa et al
0/203
11/28
11/203 trigeminal neuralgia
2 tumor-related deaths
(one malignant transformation)
 Umekawa et al
2/50
18/42
0/50
3/50
Series excluding patients with prior surgery
 Van de Langenberg et al
2/33 transient facial palsy (HB II)
7/12
1/33
3/33 facial paresthesias
 Milligan et al
3/22 facial palsy
1/22 hemifacial spasm
3/10
3/22 trigeminal neuralgia
 Bailo et al
3/59
1/59 transient worsening at 6 months
5/16
4/59 new/worsened trigeminal deficit
 Huo et al
 Ogino et al
7/170
24/42
10/170
15/170
 Pikis et al
19/627
116/205
9/81
48/627
Table 4
Overall outcome (summary): tumor control, further intervention and cranial nerves
 
All series together
P value
Series including patients with prior surgery
P value
Series not including patients with prior surgery
P value
Tumor control
 Tumor control
(stability or decrease)
89% (86.1–91.9%)
 < 0.001
87.7% (84.6–90.9%)
 < 0.001
93.7% (91.9–95.4%)
 < 0.001
 Tumor stability
29.7% (17.7–41.7%)
 < 0.001
31.2% (18.7–43.8%)
 < 0.001
23.8%
0.16
 Tumor reduction
57% (44.4–69.6%)
 < 0.001
55.1% (37.8–72.3%)
 < 0.001
64% (40.9–87%)
 < 0.001
Further intervention
 Further microsurgery
7.7% (5.3–10.1%)
 < 0.001
9.6% (6.5–12.6%)
 < 0.001
3.3% (1.7–4.9%)
 < 0.001
 Further shunt
5% (3.2–6.8%)
 < 0.001
4.7% (2.7–6.6%)
 < 0.001
6.4% (2–10.7%)
 < 0.001
 Further SRS
10% (0.5–1.4%)
 < 0.001
1% (0.03–1.7)
0.004
0.9% (0.2–1.5%)
0.007
Cranial nerve outcomes
 Facial nerve palsy
2.3% (1.2–3.4%)
 < 0.001
1.3% (0.3–2.3%)
0.01
3.4% (2.2–4.6%)
 < 0.001
 Hearing preservation
37.9% (21.6–54.3%)
 < 0.001
34.2% (24.3–44.1%)
 < 0.001
40.4% (7.0–73.9%)
0.01
*numbers in bold correspond to overall rates

Discussion

Our systematic review suggests that single fraction SRS could be used for VS ≥ 2.5 cm in maximum diameter, and/or Koos Grade IV, as either the primary treatment modality or for post-operative residual/recurrent tumor. However, we acknowledge that the Koos grade IV tumor definition varies significantly across studies and the minority (6 studies out of 19) of the published literature was specific to upfront treatment.
The overall probability of tumor control (both stability and decrease in volume) and tumor reduction in all series versus those series without prior surgery were 89% versus 93.7%, and 57% versus 64%, respectively. Several of the included series in this meta-analyses identified individual parameters associated with local failure. More specifically, Hasegawa et al. [13] suggested that a high-risk group for lower tumor control included patients with middle cerebellar peduncle compression of ≥ 9.8 mm and ≤ 48 years of age. Tumor control was also higher when prescribing a marginal dose of greater than 12 Gy as compared with less than 12 Gy [19] and for those smaller volumes [18]. Previous microsurgery, tumor volumes exceeding 10 mL, Koos grade IV [8], tumor volume more than 15 mL [14] and progression of residual disease preceding SRS [21] were also factors resulting in lower local control rates. These findings informed the ISRS recommendations as summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
Summary and recommendations
Summary (level C evidence)
Tumor control
 
Lower
Previous resection
 
Volumes exceeding 10 mL
 
Large Koos IV
 
Progression of residual VS prior to SRS
 
Middle cerebellar peduncle compression
Higher
Marginal dose of at least 12 Gy
 
Smaller volumes
Facial nerve preservation (better)
Volume less than 10 mL
Non-cystic VS
Marginal dose lower than 13 Gy
Hearing preservation (better)
Age < 60 years
Gardner-Robertson 1 at treatment
Cochlear dose less than 4 Gy
Recommendations
Ideal candidates: Patients
• Without disabling symptoms,
• With serviceable hearing,
• With comorbidities that make resection riskier
• Those who wish to avoid a resection,
• With no symptomatic mass effect
Marginal dose prescription: Between 11 and 13 Gy
The rates of salvage microsurgical resection, need for shunt, and additional SRS in all series versus those series with no prior surgery were 9.6% vs 3.3%, and 4.7% vs 6.4% and 1% vs 0.9%, respectively. The rates of facial palsy and hearing preservation in all series versus those series with no prior surgery were 2.3% vs 3.4% and 37.9% vs 40.4%, respectively. Preservation of the facial nerve function was associated with smaller tumor volumes (less than 10 mL) and lower margin dose (≤ 13 Gy) [19]. Deterioration of facial nerve function was associated with a prescription dose of ≥ 13 Gy and early TTE [28]. Hearing preservation was higher in patients with good pre-therapeutic levels of hearing (Gardner Robertson class 1), younger age, and a dose of less than 4 Gy to the cochlea/modiolus (the mean dose/point dose of less than 4 Gy to the cochlea/modiolus being already reported in the literature during the past 15 years and in the overall context of hearing preservation after SRS for VS [29, 30]). Cranial nerve complication rates were suggested in few of reviewed studies to be greater in those VS with cystic components vs solid [11]. Trigeminal neuropathy was rare and usually transient.
A particular entity that would deserve further analysis, although limited data exist on such topic, is related to previously irradiated large partially cystic VSs that will potentially develop symptomatic mass effect from fluid-dynamic cyst enlargement [31, 32], without definite neoplastic growth of the solid part. In such patients, microsurgical exploration for cyst fenestration/drainage without the need for further resection of the already treated tumor cells can be a valuable option, in the absence of tumor growth of the solid part. Such surgical option could reveal much safer and with less morbidity, in the absence of planned subtotal resection of the solid, non-growing part.
In the present review, the overall need for shunt for large VSs treated with upfront SRS in series without prior surgery was 6.4%, which is much higher as compared to smaller tumors. Previous series have suggested the need for shunt after SRS after a median time of 15.5 months (range 1.8–37.8) [33]. Hydrocephalus after radiosurgery may thus co-occur with a temporary tumor volume change after radiation and there is a crucial need for careful ongoing clinical and imaging follow-up [33]. Other authors suggested that large tumor size, ring enhancement patterns and high protein level of CSF should be carefully observed during follow-up course [34]. Thus, using programmable/adjustable MR-compatible ventriculo-peritoneal shunts in time might prevent devastating consequences due to increased intracranial pressure and a risk of sudden neurological decline.
Of the 1723 cases in this meta-analysis, four tumor-related deaths were observed. Two were secondary to developed malignant transformation, which accounts for 0.12% of the sample. This low risk is consistent with the literature including a recent meta-analysis [35]. The other two deaths were related to a refractory VS which relapsed 78 months from the time of SRS and the second due to tumor-related subarachnoid hemorrhage (Hasegawa et al.14). Moreover, TTE was inconsistently reported and should be better detailed by further studies on the same topic. Such TTE might be, in some cases, accompanied by acute and subacute radiation effects, which are in vast majority of cases transient [36].
With respect to fractionated radiation, there are as yet limited data with regards to the use of hypofractionnated SRS for large VS [13, 37]. However, there are 6 non-randomized trials [3843] comparing single fraction SRS with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT). There has yet to be significant differences in 5-year tumor control rates between the two techniques to make any firm recommendations. A recent systematic review compared SRS versus FSRT for tumor control in VSs [44]. The authors suggested that the progression-free survival rates were 92–100% for both treatment options, while the risk of facial and trigeminal nerve deterioration was less for patients treated with SRS [44]. It has been also acknowledged that there is a lack of high-quality studies comparing radiation therapy alternatives for patients with VSs [44]. We would still support fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for large VS given the established practice as a standard of care, and experience in other benign tumors with favorable control rates [45, 46]. However, there is a need for a randomized or prospectively controlled trial comparing single fraction SRS and FSRT in VS, especially in the context of clarifying if functional outcome would be better with single fraction SRS.
The main limitation of the present meta-analysis was the inability to reliably separate outcomes between upfront vs salvage cohorts, and this added complexity to this analyses. We acknowledge that those studies including patients with prior surgery also included cases with upfront SRS, which can contribute to added bias. The definition of large tumors was also extremely heterogeneous. In particular, for those treated in the post-operative residual or recurrent setting. A limited number of series included “staged-volume” SRS strategies, which might have also influenced local control. The same applies to the cystic tumors, which influence the overall results in terms of local control, and in some series they account for as high as 58% of the included cases [24]. However, the results for cystic tumors have not been separately reported in individual series, although it is now well acknowledged that they respond best to SRS as compared to the solid ones [31]. Additionally, there was a lack of uniformity with regards to the follow-up periods, to which ads variations depending on studies to the long-term and even the short-term follow up. Tumor diameters were inconsistently reported. There was also a lack of reported actuarial outcomes, which are different from the crude rates reported in the studies. There were also several different nuances concerning further neurosurgical interventions, considered as adverse events and not counted as treatment failures. Particularly, the surgical management of hydrocephalus was heterogeneous, including ventriculo-peritoneal shunt, ventriculostomy, Ommaya placement or further cyst puncture and timing of further SRS and additional surgical interventions were also extremely variable, as well as for further surgical interventions.

Recommendations

Ideal candidates for SRS in patients with a VSs of a maximum diameter ≥ 2.5 cm and/or classified as Koos Grade IV are those without symptomatic mass effect, without disabling symptoms, with pre-SRS serviceable hearing, and with comorbidities that make resection more risky or those who wish to avoid a resection (class C evidence). Based on the analyzed data, we conclude that local tumor control is optimal when prescribing a marginal dose between 11 and 13 Gy (class C evidence). Lower rates of tumor control were associated with prior surgical resection, volumes exceeding 10 mL, large Koos grade IV, progression of residual VS prior to SRS and middle cerebellar peduncle compression (class C evidence). Better facial nerve preservation was observed when treating tumor volumes less than 10 mL, non-cystic VS, and when thw marginal dose lower is than 13 Gy (class C evidence). Better hearing preservation rates were associated with younger patients (age less than 60 years), better initial hearing level (Gardner-Robertson 1) and a cochlear dose of less than 4 Gy (class C evidence). The ISRS recommendations are summarized in Table 5.

Conclusion

Although large VS are considered a classical indication for microsurgical resection, upfront single fraction SRS might be useful in select patients (class C evidence). When analyzing data from those series with no prior surgery vs those with prior surgery, higher rates of tumor control, further tumor reduction, lower rates of further intervention (microsurgical resection, shunt, SRS), higher rates of de novo facial palsy (although overall low) and higher hearing preservation rates were observed (class C evidence).

Acknowledgements

N/A

Declarations

Competing interests

None.

Ethical approval

N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt bestellen und 100 € sparen!

e.Med Neurologie & Psychiatrie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Neurologie & Psychiatrie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

e.Med Neurologie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Neurologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes, den Premium-Inhalten der neurologischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Neurologie-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsao MN, Sahgal A, Xu W, De Salles A, Hayashi M, Levivier M, Ma L, Martinez R, Regis J, Ryu S, Slotman BJ, Paddick I (2017) Stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma: International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) Practice Guideline. J Radiosurg SBRT 5:5–24PubMedPubMedCentral Tsao MN, Sahgal A, Xu W, De Salles A, Hayashi M, Levivier M, Ma L, Martinez R, Regis J, Ryu S, Slotman BJ, Paddick I (2017) Stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma: International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) Practice Guideline. J Radiosurg SBRT 5:5–24PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Huo M, Foley H, Pinkham M, Shanker M, Bernard A, Jenkins M, Olson S, Hall B, Watkins T, Jones C, Foote M (2020) Stereotactic radiotherapy for large vestibular schwannomas: Volume change following single fraction versus hypofractionated approaches. J Radiosurg SBRT 7:11–17PubMedPubMedCentral Huo M, Foley H, Pinkham M, Shanker M, Bernard A, Jenkins M, Olson S, Hall B, Watkins T, Jones C, Foote M (2020) Stereotactic radiotherapy for large vestibular schwannomas: Volume change following single fraction versus hypofractionated approaches. J Radiosurg SBRT 7:11–17PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Inoue HK (2005) Low-dose radiosurgery for large vestibular schwannomas: long-term results of functional preservation. J Neurosurg 102(Suppl):111–113CrossRefPubMed Inoue HK (2005) Low-dose radiosurgery for large vestibular schwannomas: long-term results of functional preservation. J Neurosurg 102(Suppl):111–113CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Mezey G, Cahill J, Rowe JG, Yianni J, Bhattacharyya D, Walton L, Rodgers J, Radatz MWR (2020) A retrospective analysis of the role of single-session gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery in sporadic vestibular schwannomas with tumor volumes greater than 10 cm3: is it worth stretching the boundaries? Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 98:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1159/000504857CrossRefPubMed Mezey G, Cahill J, Rowe JG, Yianni J, Bhattacharyya D, Walton L, Rodgers J, Radatz MWR (2020) A retrospective analysis of the role of single-session gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery in sporadic vestibular schwannomas with tumor volumes greater than 10 cm3: is it worth stretching the boundaries? Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 98:85–94. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1159/​000504857CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Pikis S, Mantziaris G, Kormath Anand R, Nabeel AM, Sheehan D, Sheehan K, Reda WA, Tawadros SR, Abdelkarim K, El-Shehaby AMN, Emad Eldin R, Peker S, Samanci Y, Kaisman-Elbaz T, Speckter H, Hernandez W, Isidor J, Tripathi M, Madan R, Zacharia BE, Daggubati LC, Martinez Moreno N, Martinez Alvarez R, Langlois AM, Mathieu D, Deibert CP, Sudhakar VR, Cifarelli CP, Arteaga Icaza D, Cifarelli DT, Wei Z, Niranjan A, Barnett GH, Lunsford LD, Bowden GN, Sheehan JP (2022) Stereotactic radiosurgery for Koos grade IV vestibular schwannoma: a multi-institutional study. J Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.4.JNS22203CrossRefPubMed Pikis S, Mantziaris G, Kormath Anand R, Nabeel AM, Sheehan D, Sheehan K, Reda WA, Tawadros SR, Abdelkarim K, El-Shehaby AMN, Emad Eldin R, Peker S, Samanci Y, Kaisman-Elbaz T, Speckter H, Hernandez W, Isidor J, Tripathi M, Madan R, Zacharia BE, Daggubati LC, Martinez Moreno N, Martinez Alvarez R, Langlois AM, Mathieu D, Deibert CP, Sudhakar VR, Cifarelli CP, Arteaga Icaza D, Cifarelli DT, Wei Z, Niranjan A, Barnett GH, Lunsford LD, Bowden GN, Sheehan JP (2022) Stereotactic radiosurgery for Koos grade IV vestibular schwannoma: a multi-institutional study. J Neurosurg. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3171/​2022.​4.​JNS22203CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Stastna D, Urgosik D, Chytka T, Liscak R (2021) Large vestibular schwannomas: long-term outcomes after stereotactic radiosurgery. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 41:329–338PubMed Stastna D, Urgosik D, Chytka T, Liscak R (2021) Large vestibular schwannomas: long-term outcomes after stereotactic radiosurgery. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 41:329–338PubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Umekawa M, Shinya Y, Hasegawa H, Kawashima M, Shin M, Katano A, Minamitani M, Kashio A, Kondo K, Saito N (2022) Stereotactic radiosurgery ensures an effective and safe long-term control of Koos grade IV vestibular schwannomas: a single-center, retrospective, cohort study. J Neurooncol 159:201–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-04058-9CrossRefPubMed Umekawa M, Shinya Y, Hasegawa H, Kawashima M, Shin M, Katano A, Minamitani M, Kashio A, Kondo K, Saito N (2022) Stereotactic radiosurgery ensures an effective and safe long-term control of Koos grade IV vestibular schwannomas: a single-center, retrospective, cohort study. J Neurooncol 159:201–209. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11060-022-04058-9CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Pikis S, Mantziaris G, Anand RK, Nabeel AM, Sheehan D, Sheehan K, Reda WA, Tawadros SR, Abdelkarim K, El-Shehaby AMN, Eldin RE, Peker S, Samanci Y, Kaisman-Elbaz T, Speckter H, Hernández W, Isidor J, Tripathi M, Madan R, Zacharia BE, Daggubati LC, Martínez Moreno N, Martínez Álvarez R, Langlois A-M, Mathieu D, Deibert C, Sudhakar V, Cifarelli C, Arteaga Icaza D, Cifarelli D, Wei Z, Niranjan A, Barnett G, Lunsford D, Bowden G, Sheehan J (2022) Stereotactic radiosurgery for Koos grade IV vestibular schwannoma: a multi-institutional study. J Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.4.JNS22203CrossRefPubMed Pikis S, Mantziaris G, Anand RK, Nabeel AM, Sheehan D, Sheehan K, Reda WA, Tawadros SR, Abdelkarim K, El-Shehaby AMN, Eldin RE, Peker S, Samanci Y, Kaisman-Elbaz T, Speckter H, Hernández W, Isidor J, Tripathi M, Madan R, Zacharia BE, Daggubati LC, Martínez Moreno N, Martínez Álvarez R, Langlois A-M, Mathieu D, Deibert C, Sudhakar V, Cifarelli C, Arteaga Icaza D, Cifarelli D, Wei Z, Niranjan A, Barnett G, Lunsford D, Bowden G, Sheehan J (2022) Stereotactic radiosurgery for Koos grade IV vestibular schwannoma: a multi-institutional study. J Neurosurg. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3171/​2022.​4.​JNS22203CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Massager N, Nissim O, Delbrouck C, Delpierre I, Devriendt D, Desmedt F, Wikler D, Brotchi J, Levivier M (2013) Irradiation of cochlear structures during vestibular schwannoma radiosurgery and associated hearing outcome. J Neurosurg 119(Suppl):733–739 Massager N, Nissim O, Delbrouck C, Delpierre I, Devriendt D, Desmedt F, Wikler D, Brotchi J, Levivier M (2013) Irradiation of cochlear structures during vestibular schwannoma radiosurgery and associated hearing outcome. J Neurosurg 119(Suppl):733–739
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Wolf A, Naylor K, Tam M, Habibi A, Novotny J, Liscak R, Martinez-Moreno N, Martinez-Alvarez R, Sisterson N, Golfinos JG, Silverman J, Kano H, Sheehan J, Lunsford LD, Kondziolka D (2019) Risk of radiation-associated intracranial malignancy after stereotactic radiosurgery: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 20:159–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30659-4CrossRefPubMed Wolf A, Naylor K, Tam M, Habibi A, Novotny J, Liscak R, Martinez-Moreno N, Martinez-Alvarez R, Sisterson N, Golfinos JG, Silverman J, Kano H, Sheehan J, Lunsford LD, Kondziolka D (2019) Risk of radiation-associated intracranial malignancy after stereotactic radiosurgery: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 20:159–164. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1470-2045(18)30659-4CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Anderson BM, Khuntia D, Bentzen SM, Geye HM, Hayes LL, Kuo JS, Baskaya MK, Badie B, Basavatia A, Pyle GM, Tome WA, Mehta MP (2014) Single institution experience treating 104 vestibular schwannomas with fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy or stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 116:187–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1282-4CrossRefPubMed Anderson BM, Khuntia D, Bentzen SM, Geye HM, Hayes LL, Kuo JS, Baskaya MK, Badie B, Basavatia A, Pyle GM, Tome WA, Mehta MP (2014) Single institution experience treating 104 vestibular schwannomas with fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy or stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 116:187–193. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11060-013-1282-4CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Andrews DW, Suarez O, Goldman HW, Downes MB, Bednarz G, Corn BW, Werner-Wasik M, Rosenstock J, Curran WJ Jr (2001) Stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for the treatment of acoustic schwannomas: comparative observations of 125 patients treated at one institution. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:1265–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01559-0CrossRefPubMed Andrews DW, Suarez O, Goldman HW, Downes MB, Bednarz G, Corn BW, Werner-Wasik M, Rosenstock J, Curran WJ Jr (2001) Stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for the treatment of acoustic schwannomas: comparative observations of 125 patients treated at one institution. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:1265–1278. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0360-3016(01)01559-0CrossRefPubMed
42.
Metadaten
Titel
Single-fraction radiosurgery outcomes for large vestibular schwannomas in the upfront or post-surgical setting: a systematic review and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) Practice Guidelines
verfasst von
Constantin Tuleasca
Rupesh Kotecha
Arjun Sahgal
Antonio de Salles
Laura Fariselli
Ian Paddick
Bruce E. Pollock
Jean Régis
Jason Sheehan
John H. Suh
Shoji Yomo
Marc Levivier
Publikationsdatum
16.10.2023
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0167-594X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7373
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-023-04455-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

Journal of Neuro-Oncology 1/2023 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Neurologie

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Demenzkranke durch Antipsychotika vielfach gefährdet

Demenz Nachrichten

Der Einsatz von Antipsychotika gegen psychische und Verhaltenssymptome in Zusammenhang mit Demenzerkrankungen erfordert eine sorgfältige Nutzen-Risiken-Abwägung. Neuen Erkenntnissen zufolge sind auf der Risikoseite weitere schwerwiegende Ereignisse zu berücksichtigen.

Nicht Creutzfeldt Jakob, sondern Abführtee-Vergiftung

29.05.2024 Hyponatriämie Nachrichten

Eine ältere Frau trinkt regelmäßig Sennesblättertee gegen ihre Verstopfung. Der scheint plötzlich gut zu wirken. Auf Durchfall und Erbrechen folgt allerdings eine Hyponatriämie. Nach deren Korrektur kommt es plötzlich zu progredienten Kognitions- und Verhaltensstörungen.

Schutz der Synapsen bei Alzheimer

29.05.2024 Morbus Alzheimer Nachrichten

Mit einem Neurotrophin-Rezeptor-Modulator lässt sich möglicherweise eine bestehende Alzheimerdemenz etwas abschwächen: Erste Phase-2-Daten deuten auf einen verbesserten Synapsenschutz.

Sozialer Aufstieg verringert Demenzgefahr

24.05.2024 Demenz Nachrichten

Ein hohes soziales Niveau ist mit die beste Versicherung gegen eine Demenz. Noch geringer ist das Demenzrisiko für Menschen, die sozial aufsteigen: Sie gewinnen fast zwei demenzfreie Lebensjahre. Umgekehrt steigt die Demenzgefahr beim sozialen Abstieg.

Update Neurologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.