Evidence Hub

Risk of radiation-associated intracranial malignancy after stereotactic radiosurgery: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study

A. Wolf, K. Naylor, M. Tam, Akram A. Habibi, J. Novotný, R. Liščák, N. Martínez-Moreno, R. Martínez‐Álvarez et al.

The Lancet Oncology, 2019

4,905 participants · 104 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

A major concern of patients who have stereotactic radiosurgery is the long-term risk of having a secondary intracranial malignancy or, in the case of patients with benign tumours treated with the technique, the risk of malignant transformation. The incidence of stereotactic radiosurgery-associated intracranial malignancy remains unknown; therefore, our aim was to estimate it in a population-based study to assess the long-term safety of this technique.

METHODS

We did a population-based, multicentre, cohort study at five international radiosurgery centres (Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic [n=2655 patients]; Ruber International Hospital, Madrid, Spain [n=1080], University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA [n=1027]; University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA [n=80]; and NYU Langone Health System, New York, NY, USA [n=63]). Eligible patients were of any age, and had Gamma Knife radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformation, trigeminal neuralgia, or benign intracranial tumours, which included vestibular or other benign schwannomas, WHO grade 1 meningiomas, pituitary adenomas, and haemangioblastoma. Patients were excluded if they had previously had radiotherapy or did not have a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. The primary objective of the study was to estimate the incidence of stereotactic radiosurgery-associated intracranial malignancy, including malignant transformation of a benign lesion or development of radiation-associated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,905 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free