Palliative Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases

Muhammad Hashmi; Mohit Agarwal; Elizabeth Maani; Marco Cascella

Palliative Radiation Therapy for Brain Metastases

Author: Muhammad F. Hashmi Author: Mohit S. Agarwal Author: Elizabeth V. Maani Editor: Marco Cascella Updated: 6/4/2023 1:01:13 PM

Introduction

Central nervous system (CNS) involvement by tumoral metastasis is a potentially life-threatening complication, representing the immediate cause of death in more than 50 percent of the cases.[1][2] Of note, brain metastasis represents the most common brain tumor in the United States (US).[3] The most common brain metastasizing tumors include primaries from the lungs, breast, colon, skin (melanoma), and kidney.[4] Two-year and five-year survival rates of 8.1 percent and 2.4 percent are noted for those with intracranial metastasis across various tumor types.[5] Moreover, it has been estimated that 10-40 percent of all patients with cancer will eventually develop brain metastasis.[6] The lack of reporting of the extent of metastatic spread at the time of enrolment into studies and follow-up in advanced cancer patients (who might go onto develop intracranial metastasis later) might be the reason underlying the underdiagnosis of this disease entity.[7]

The most common spread route is through the hematogenous route with the seeding of the brain tissue (microvasculature).[8] Interactions between the tumor and the microvascular niche, a neuroinflammatory cascade that aids the spread of tumor and neovascularization, have been postulated to underlie the primary tumor's spread.[9] Intertumoral heterogeneity within the metastatic deposits and a failure to fully understand the clonally selected molecular aberrations might underlie the consistently poor prognosis associated with the tumor's spread to the CNS.[10]

The brain ecosystem represents a unique microenvironment with the inherent ability to aid and limit tumor homing in equal measures. While the microvasculature promotes the spread of tumors, penetration of systemic therapies to the brain tissue is limited.[11] Understanding the various mechanisms predisposing to the homing of the tumor cells to the brain and basic knowledge of genetic alterations is necessary for planning optimum treatment.

Radiation therapy aims to mitigate the adverse impact of intracranial metastasis on survival and improve the health-related quality of life (HRQoL).[12] Recent research in the management of brain metastasis has focused upon using targeted therapies that have good local bioavailability, strategies to provide conformal radiation, limiting adverse effects of irradiation on neurocognitive, and outlining relevant indications for optimum use of immunotherapy.[13][14][15] Local therapy choice depends upon various parameters, namely patient factors (performance status, stage, and estimated survival), tumor factors (location of metastasis, type of tumor, number, size, and extracranial disease status), and prior treatment history.[16][17]

The first evidence of the utility of whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in palliation of brain metastasis came from Chao et al.[18] Their paper was also significant for reporting a high incidence of recurrence in irradiated patients.[18] Subsequent studies by Borgelt et al. were designed to explore the equivalence between different dose fractionation regimens. Both a dose fractionation schedule of 30 Gray in 10 fractions and 37.5 Gray in 15 fractions were equally effective.[19]

This chapter aims to recall, analyze, and select appropriate indications and contraindications for the use of palliative radiotherapy in patients with intracranial metastasis. The clinical significance, technique involved, and recent advances in providing palliative radiotherapy in this clinical setting are also addressed.

Anatomy and Physiology

Register For Free And Read The Full Article

Get the answers you need instantly with the StatPearls Clinical Decision Support tool. StatPearls spent the last decade developing the largest and most updated Point-of Care resource ever developed. Earn CME/CE by searching and reading articles.

Search engine and full access to all medical articles
10 free questions in your specialty
Free CME/CE Activities

Free daily question in your email
Save favorite articles to your dashboard
Emails offering discounts

Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care

Anatomy and Physiology

Blood Cerebrospinal Fluid Barrier

The choroid plexus epithelial cells connected via tight junctions form the blood-cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) barrier.[20] Fenestrations and gap junctions within the choroid plexus capillaries enable movement of particles to and fro between the extravascular compartment and CNS.[21] The C3 complement component's expression by the primary tumor cells has been shown to aid mitogenic stimulus entry within the CNS.[22] This complement component has been implicated directly in the pathogenesis of leptomeningeal seeding. Activation of the C3a receptor in the choroid plexus epithelium, indeed, has been linked to the disruption of the blood-brain barrier, which allows the entry of amphiregulin and other mitotic signals within the cerebrospinal fluid.[22]

Cancer Metastasis

The process of metastasis can be summarized into three steps:[23][24]

Intravasation
Extravasation
Adhesive arrest [25]

Intravasation involves the breakage of tumor cells away from the primary tissue and invasion of the surrounding tissues, venules, capillaries, and lymphatic system. Tumor cells that intravasate into the circulation through the lymphatics or blood vessels interact with macrophages to form actin-rich degradative protrusions—these protrusions aid in clearing the extracellular matrix.

Extravasation involves the egress of these cells from the circulation into the tissue. Circulatory tumors cells, upon metastatic extravasation, undergo adhesive or circulatory arrest. Brain metastases tend to occur at areas with relatively longer mean transit times, such as the white and grey matter interface and watershed territories, which provide cells relatively longer times to egress from the circulation. Tumor cells may lie dormant at the target site of extravasation and arrest, or undergo apoptosis. Cells undergo adhesive circulatory arrest followed by extravasation either as single cells or a tumor embolus.

Factors that favor increased chances of homing to the brain include a dense microcapillary network and higher blood flow in proportion to other organs. Slowing of tumor cell movement at branch points in capillaries and the larger size of tumor cells compared to red blood cells favor the process of circulatory arrest. Specific interactions between tumor cells and endothelium have been shown to predispose to circulatory arrest. The upregulation of glycosyltransferase ST6GALNAC5 has been shown to lead to the homing of breast cancer tumor cells to the vascular endothelium.

Radiobiology

The selection of dosing of treatment depends upon the biological behavior of the tissue to radiation therapy. Late responding tissues are more susceptible to a single high dose of irradiation than early responding tissues. Most malignant tumors (brain metastasis, glioblastoma multiforme, low-grade glioma) behave as early responding tissues (meningioma, acoustic neuroma), while benign tumors behave as late responding tissues.[26][27]

Indications

The following factors need to be taken into consideration while deciding upon the treatment options in patients with brain metastasis:[16][28]

Volume and number of metastasis
Performance status
Age
Presence of extracranial disease and leptomeningeal disease
Location of metastasis
Site of the resection cavity
Patient's preference
Primary tumor site
Type and molecular profile

Points favoring the continued use of whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in the setting of intracranial metastasis include:[29][30]

Improvement in CNS control
Management of micrometastasis
Reduction in the rate of recurrence
Improvement in overall survival and HRQoL
Prevention of the life-threatening and imminently fatal brain compression syndrome

Factors favoring the use of hypofractionation dosing include:[31][32]

Presence of a large lesion (more than 30 mm)
Proximity to a critical structure
History of previous irradiation
Presence of comorbidities such as stroke and vascular dementia

Whole-Brain Radiotherapy (WBRT)

WBRT is indicated in patients in whom stereotactic radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) cannot be performed, including those with leptomeningeal disease, numerous metastasis, low radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (DS-GPA) scores, or medical contraindications.[6][33]

The presence of comorbidities, location of metastasis, tumor size, patient preference, and the extent of edema determine the choice of treatment in the presence of a single metastasis.[34][35]

Brain metastasis velocity may be used to determine patients who might benefit from WBRT who have distal brain failure after initial SRS.[36] Brain velocity is defined as the cumulative number of new metastasis developed per year after the receipt of SRS.[36]

The two main concerns that have persisted with the continued preference for the use of WBRT in this setting include:

The limited impact on survival outcomes
The potential to lead to neurocognitive decline [29][30][37]

Tumor regression after WBRT has been shown to correlate with improvement in neurocognitive function.[30] An increase in maximum dose delivered to the hippocampus has been associated with a greater decline in memory, which has provided a degree of credibility to the argument that the maximum dose of radiation that the hippocampus can safely be exposed might be lower than that presumed earlier.[38] Dose to 100 percent volume (D100) of 9 Gray and maximum dose (Dmax) of 16 Gray, delivered to the hippocampus during the standard fractionation schedule of 30 Gray in 10 fractions have been associated with an impairment in memory.[39][40]

Irradiation to neuro regenerative zone of the hippocampus has been postulated to be associated with neurocognitive deficits.[41] The hippocampus contains a reserve of neural stem cells (located in the subgranular layer of dentate gyrus), responsible for memory.[42] Hippocampal granule cells generated from the actively dividing neural stem cells migrate into the granular cell layer.[43] Neurogenesis within the dentate gyrus has been associated with neurocognition.[44] The neurogenic stem cell compartment is exquisitely radiosensitive.[45] Radiation-induced changes in the stromal microenvironment may lead to premature differentiation of neuronal progenitor cells into glial morphology.[46] Radiotherapy induced cell death has been attributed to an alteration in the NMDA to GABA ratio.[47]

Various tools have been used to assess the neurocognitive dysfunction associated with receipt of radiotherapy to the brain (mainly WBRT). Psychometric tools that have been validated in this setting include Hopkins verbal learning test (HVLT), controlled oral word association, grooved pegboard test, trail making tests a, and b.[48] A mean 30 percent decline has been noticed on the HVLT with the use of WBRT.[49] Morris water maze test, which assesses spatial learning and memory (hippocampal function) in preclinical investigations, demonstrates a measurable decline following irradiation.[50] Impairment in working memory (as conceived in Baddeley model), thought to be independent of hippocampal functioning, has also been reported with cranial irradiation.[51] This led to the hypothesis that irradiation to other brain regions such as the prefrontal cortex or the striatum may also be responsible for the decline in neurocognitive function associated with cranial irradiation.[52][53] The use of cholinesterase inhibitors like donepezil has been a study subject in phase three trials in this setting. Benefit has been demonstrated in those with greater pretreatment cognitive deficits.[54] The use of memantine in addition to HA (hippocampal avoidance)-WBRT has been proposed as a standard of care in those with a good performance status with no metastases in the hippocampal region, who are candidates for WBRT.[55][41]

WBRT with hippocampus avoidance (HA-WBRT), use of SRS, and spatially partitioned adaptive radiotherapy (SPARE) have been used to mitigate the effects of WBRT on the neurocognitive decline. SPARE employs a technique of administering single-fraction SRS over multiple days, limiting the daily treatment time to less than 60 minutes in those with 10-30 brain metastases. This technique has been postulated to have the least possible off-target effects on the hippocampus.[56]

RTOG 933 criteria have described the dosimetric characteristics of dual-arc conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (DAC-VMAT) in WBRT with hippocampal sparing. Dual arc conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy covers a large field to provide the requisite planned tumor volume.[57]

The following issues may be encountered:

Reduction in gantry velocity from one angle to another
Acquisition of limits prescribed for traveling distance for the MLC upon reaching the distal part of the planned target volume[57]

A wide jaw opening has been linked with suboptimal multileaf collimator function (due to interference with movements).[57] The multi-leaf collimator's failure to shield the organs at risk upon reaching the distal parts of the planned target volume has also been a cause of concern. Measures such as simple split arc technique and split arc partial field (SAPF) technique have been used to prevent suboptimal multileaf collimator movements (limit scatter radiation) and related radiation-induced toxicity to organs at risk. SAPF volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been shown to reduce the dose of radiation delivered to the hippocampus and other organs at risk without compromising the planned target volume delivery.[57]

The role of WBRT has been mired in some controversy given the results of the QUARTZ trial, where 538 non-small lung cancer patients with brain metastasis were not eligible for SRS. These patient subgroups were randomized to either WBRT or best supportive care. No significant differences in overall survival, overall HRQoL, or dexamethasone dosing were noticed between the two arms.[58][59]

Though randomized control trials in this setting are lacking, the presence of extensive nodular or symptomatic linear leptomeningeal metastasis is also an indication for WBRT.[60][61]

The Choose Wisely Campaign orchestrated by the American Society for Radiation Oncology has advised against the addition of WBRT in the adjuvant setting to SRS for patients with limited intracranial metastasis.[62]

A continued deferral of WBRT with receipt of multiple SRS courses for progression of recurrent brain metastases (in those who have received initial courses of SRS) has led to higher rates of local control, lower toxicity, and favorable overall and neurological progression-free survival.[63]

Stereotactic Radiosurgery

Emerging randomized data demonstrate a potential beneficial effect on survival from the use of SRS.[64][65] Stereotactic radiotherapy/SRS is usually indicated in patients with multiple brain metastases with the controlled or uncontrolled extracranial disease along with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or more.[65] There have been suggestions that support a combination of surgery followed by SRS in the presence of a single large and multiple small lesions. After surgery, the sequencing of SRS is indicated to improve local control, reduce the incidence of radionecrosis, and leptomeningeal spread.[66][67][68]

SRS provides the advantages of delivering higher dose conformal radiation in a single session, without any inordinate delay in the provision of systemic chemotherapy or immunotherapy.[69] A very steep gradient dose falls off beyond the prescribed isodose line and adds to the favorable dosimetric characteristics, which lend themselves well to the delivery of dose to intracranial and skull base lesions.[70] SRS is a standard of care in patients with good performance status and a performance status of more than 70 percent.[71] SRS has also been more cost-effective than a combination of SRS and WBRT in patients with 1-3 brain metastasis (an oligometastatic disease with a limited metastatic burden), those with an expected median survival of fewer than six months and for those with a less than ten metastasis.[72]

Pre-operative SRS has also been proposed as an adjunct to surgery due to challenges associated with contouring the post-operative surgical cavity, higher local failure rates with the use of WBRT, risks of leptomeningeal spread (with the use of cavity SRS due to sterilization effect), and radiation-induced necrosis (smaller amount of non-malignant brain tissue irradiated, resection of a majority of irradiated tissue). Other potential advantages of pre-operative SRS include increased local control due to improved target delineation, sterilization effect, and improved oxygenation. Lack of pathological confirmation and impaired wound healing are potential disadvantages.[73]

It has been postulated that the decision to use WBRT or SRS should not be solely based upon the number of brain metastases (in those with the number of metastases limited to less than 15). A total cumulative volume of 12-13 cm3 may be considered to a better prognostic indicator of overall survival. More than ten lesions in the brain (have been) can be treated (successfully) using stereotactic radiosurgery.[74][75]

Several studies have demonstrated SRS's utility in brain metastasis due to tumors, traditionally considered to be radioresistant such as melanoma and renal cell carcinoma, with comparable local control rates (compared to non-radioresistant histologies).[76] SRS has achieved a steep fall off from the target tissues to surrounding normal structures by the use of multiple converging static or moving beams.[77] This has been able to reduce the risk of damage to the surrounding structures. The dose of radiation is inversely proportional to tumor size. The maximal tolerated doses of radiation derived from the RTOG 9005 study vary from 24 Gy for lesions 20 mm in size, 18 Gy for 21–30 mm, and 15 Gy for 31–40 mm, respectively.[78]

The risk of radiation necrosis needs to be weighed against the potentially unproven clinical benefit with reirradiation of a local recurrence with SRS, in those who have received SRS earlier.[79]

Fractionated Radiosurgery

Fractionated radiosurgery (with 2 -5 fractions) combines the use of steep dose gradients and closer treatment margins associated with SRS, with the radiobiological advantages of fractionation.[80][81] An improvement in the extent of local control, lower risk of complications, and its position as an alternative option to surgery have been listed as the potential advantages of this procedure. As SRS may fail to treat all microscopic disease and the treatment of choice in the salvage setting is yet to be determined, more studies have been suggested in this setting.

Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation

While prophylactic cranial irradiation is recommended in those with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), who show a good response to systemic therapy, it remains a controversial option for those with extensive-stage SCLC or other unfavorable prognostic factors such as advanced age and presence of multiple comorbidities.[82][83] Though dosing of 25 Gy in 10 fractions has been advised as the standard, the role of prophylactic intracranial irradiation needs to be re-visited in light of the changes in the treatment landscape brought about by immunotherapy.

Contraindications

Collagen vascular diseases such as lupus, scleroderma, Sjogren syndrome, and inflammatory bowel syndrome are considered absolute contraindications, though it has been argued that these are not absolute contraindications.[84]

Inherited cancer predisposition syndromes such as ataxia telangiectasia, Nijmegen breakage syndrome, Fanconi anemia, Gorlin syndrome, Cockayne syndrome, Down syndrome, Gardner syndrome, Usher syndrome should be carefully addressed.[85][86]

Equipment

Stereotactic Radiosurgery

Stereotactic radiation can be delivered by using a linear accelerator, gamma knife unit, and the use of charged particles.[87][88] The current version of the gamma knife uses 192 Cobalt 60 sources. An inbuilt MRI compatible, stereotactic headframe is used for the immobilization of the head. The headframe adapter has three gantry angles, which are attached to the new positioning system. The positioning system enables movement in the x, y, and z directions, which minimizes the time spent in changing the patient configuration. During SRS, the head frame is secured to the patient's skull bone using titanium pins. The X, Y, and Z coordinates and the gamma angle determine the positioning of the head frame relative to the gamma knife. These coordinates are determined based upon the target coverage required and the treatment planning parameters.

Treatment planning software uses digital imaging and communication in medicine, and the use of automatic radiation dose balancing algorithms are recent advances introduced with the advent of the gamma knife. The composite dose can be calculated by using a DICOM image and dose file, while the weighing of radiation doses at multiple targets is performed by the automatic dose balancing algorithm blocking of sectors to protect critical structures by the use of dynamic shaping has also been introduced. Prescribed radiation dose and isodose are determined by multiple factors, including target type, target size, and prior radiotherapy or SRS.

Personnel

Radiation Therapy Personnel

The WHO document on Quality reassurance in Radiotherapy delineates the following roles for various staff involved in the provision of Radiotherapy[89].

Radiation oncologist/ Clinical oncologist (board certified) – Responsible solely for the provision of patient care, directly involved in initial planning and treatment, confirmation of delineation of treatment volume, supervision of set up, response assessment as well as management of adverse effects of treatment. Well-versed in cancer care. Must have the capability to delineate the role of radiation in the treatment of specific cancers, while also being aware of the role of other modalities in cancer therapeutics (Surgical and Medical oncology approaches that require the use of Chemotherapy, targeted agents, and immunotherapy drugs). Maintenance of teletherapy and brachytherapy equipment, positioning of the patient including marking and verification, acquiring patient data and planning, review of patient records, and patient safety. Designs the treatment plan. Ensures that limiting dose is delivered to critical organs. Prescription of treatment, monitoring of patients during treatment.

Medical Radiation Physicist – Vital role in monitoring the accuracy of dose of radiation delivered, Role in prevention of dosimetric, geometrical, and treatment planning errors. maintenance and upkeep of metrological equipment (Teletherapy and brachytherapy resources and equipment), acquisition of relevant patient data, delineation of target organs and demarcation of organs at risk, dose calculations and in vivo dosimetry, review of patient records, the performance of quality testing. Also plays an important role in patient safety and personnel safety. Involved in radiation, mechanical and collision avoidance, prevention of electrical hazards, prevention of mechanical failures, upkeep of facilities, shielding from toxic effects of radiation therapy, prevention of contamination, electrical safety measures such as earthing of equipment. Should have basic knowledge of anatomy, physiology, oncology, and radiobiology.

Medical radiation therapy technicians/ Radiotherapy technologists – Knowledge of machine set up, optimum patient positioning on the treatment table, placement of blocks and wedges to achieve the desired positioning. Should have knowledge in Anatomy, physiology, pathology, oncology, radiation physics, radiation biology, treatment planning, radiation protection, radiobiology, and essential aspects of patient care. Performs system quality assurance (constancy) tests.

Radiation technician – usually involved in the preparation of equipment for daily use, insertion of beam modifying equipment, optimum patient positioning, use of aids (wedges and blocks) while positioning, awareness of techniques involved in obtaining Field localization films, measurement of the clinical dose received, maintenance of treatment records and safe usage of radiotherapeutic isotopes.

Medical dosimetrists – Specially educated radiation workforce, provide treatment planning, mould work, calculation of the exact amount to radiation to be delivered.

Engineers – may be responsible for maintenance of equipment, provide technical expertise, functioning of radiation equipment. Usually, receive training from the manufacturer. Expertise in the resolution of technical, mechanical, and electrical faults.

Personnel in other categories may play an advisory role.

A historical perspective of the Radiation Oncology workforce and ongoing initiatives to impact recruitment and retention concedes that there has been a stagnation in the number of trained radiation delivery personnel over the years which had led to an acute shortage of Radiation therapists, dosimetrists, and oncology nurses in the United States. They also warn that this shortage is bound to worsen over the coming years[90].

Preparation

A particular issue with the planning of radiotherapy to the brain is the proximity to functionally significant structures, whose exposure to radiation can lead to significant morbidity. Efficient immobilization and accurate planning are essential to ensure that complications can be minimized.[91][92]

Technique or Treatment

Immobilization

The type of material used, method of fixation employed, the percentage area of the material that comes in contact with the patient during the procedure, and technique used to support the patent all affect the procedure's reproducibility. Immobilization may require masks, which may be hazardous for patients with claustrophobia. Pretreatment identification of the patients and setting up limits and appropriate margins, up to which irradiation can be provided in such scenarios, may be useful in achieving optimum results.[93]

Compliance of the Patient

The patient's inability to assume a posture for the duration of treatment may compromise the procedure. Anxiety, neurological deficit, and nausea due to raised intracranial tension may lead to movement.[94]

Accuracy of treatment delivered may also vary due to the uncertainty associated with using multiple images acquired through different techniques. Transfer errors associated with each imaging stage might attain significance and affect outcomes.

Reproducibility of the Setup

It depends upon the immobilization technique used. Set up errors in the region of 1.3 to 2 mm have been reported using stereotactic frames. The degree of setup errors encountered during immobilization also depends upon the material of the masks used, ranging from 3 mm with the use of high melting point thermoacrylic systems, 4-5.5 mm using low melting point thermoacrylic systems, and 3.27 mm when thermoplastics are used in combination with a bite block.[95]

Internal Organ Movement

The lack of movement of the brain within the cranium limits the effect of internal organ motion, thus, making the use of intrafraction analysis unnecessary.[96]

Radiotherapy Fields and Imaging

The timing and frequency of imaging to the brain need to be standardized.[97][98][99] First day images are accurate to identify gross and systematic data preparation errors. To account for the errors which may be introduced due to other factors, daily images for the first three days are advised. Weekly imaging may be required to account for the variations in the fit of the immobilization device due to the effects of steroid use.

A review of the field edges and the isocentre, with the use of images that are representative of all treatment fields, may be required to preserve critical structures in the brain. Double exposures with asymmetrical fields may be required to prevent injury to critical structures when the anatomy of the intracranial structures is not evident in one image.

Measurement of fiducial surrogates might provide good information when clear images cannot be obtained, either due to the structure of immobilization devices or non-coplanar arrangement of the fields.

Concomitant exposure to vital structures needs to be reduced while treating benign tumors such as pituitary adenoma. An attempt may be made to target the site of interest while preserving target structures nearby, even at sites for which double exposure may be required.

Virtual planning CT scanning should be done before irradiation for planning. Virtual CT simulation when part of the brain is being irradiated.

Treatment Planning

Whole-brain Radiotherapy

The use of parallel fields in WBRT enables coverage of the entire brain. Recent research has focused on reducing the dose of radiation delivered to the parotid gland (an organ at risk) by using WBRT with non-coplanar beams and four field box therapy, which is delivered with the patient's head bent forwards. While bilateral WBRT is delivered using parallel opposed beams, four field box therapy uses anterior, posterior, and bilateral beams. The parallel fields in WBRT include the brain parenchyma, skull, and the spinal cord (until the level of the second cervical vertebrae).[100][101][102][103]
3 D planning, which should use CT data fused with T1 weighed gadolinium-enhanced images. Gross tumor volume is defined by the contours of the gadolinium enhancement on T1 weighted image (after adding 2 mm to the contours/borders for adjustments due to MRI fusion uncertainties). The routine use of intensity-modulated treatment should be considered. Dose delivered in a single daily fraction may vary from 16 Gy.
The field of irradiation includes the whole brain with a clearance of 1 cm from the outer table and the base of the skull extending up to the bottom of C2. This might be achieved with the use of lateral parallel opposed fields for virtual simulation.
Fractionation schedules may include 30 Gy in 10 fractions, 20 Gy in 5 fractions, and 12 Gy in 2 fractions, in those with poor performance status.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery

Standard SRS is reserved for lesions less than 3 cm in diameter to reduce the risk of radiation necrosis in the surrounding brain parenchyma. Standard SRS places an isocentre target within individual brain metastases, following which each isocentre is set up and managed sequentially. There has been a move towards anointing a single isocentre within the brain, along with the use of helical tomography and volumetric modulated arc therapy to target multiple metastases at the same time.[104][105]

Hypofractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy

Hypofractionated SRT allows increased time for recovery of surrounding parenchyma by allowing 3-5 fractions on successive or alternate days. The two most common regimens enable the delivery of 25 Gy in 5 fractions and 21 Gy in 3 fractions, respectively.[32]

Supratentorial Boost

Supratentorial boost optimization of 2-3 field plan may be achieved by using 3D planning using CT data along with MRI fusion. A boost delivering 10 Gy in 5 fractions may be delivered over the course of one week.[106][107]

Posterior Cranial Fossa Boost

Virtual simulation may use opposing lateral fields extending from the posterior fossa to the second cervical vertebrae. Adequate anatomical coverage can be achieved by using MRI fusion, which may aid in the outlining of the contours of the cerebellum and brainstem. A boost delivering 20 Gy in 5 daily fractions may be delivered over one week.[108]

Hippocampal Avoidance Region

Bilateral hippocampal contours can be generated on a thin slice MRI-CT fusion image set. The HA region is generated by expanding the hippocampal contour by 5 mm.[41]

Contouring of Brain Metastasis

MRI with gadolinium contrast has been advised for treatment planning. Fusion with axial CT is also advised. Gross tumor volume is defined upon gadolinium enhancement with a 1 mm margin. Planning tumor volume or the total treatment volume is calculated by adding a 1-3 mm margin to the gross tumor volume in geometrical form. The tolerance dose for critical structures, while using intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment, is calculated using the planning at risk volume, which can be created by adding a 3 mm margin to the critical structure.[109]

Quality Assurance

Dose homogeneity (HI) values close to zero indicate superior homogeneity.[110][111]

Complications

Whole-brain Radiotherapy

Several issues can be associated with the use of WBRT.[112][113][114][115] Key risks with the use of radiotherapy include the risk of radionecrosis, which might require resection in the future. The increased propensity to cause seizures, especially in people with a history of epilepsy, the possibility of a long duration of steroids, problems likely to be encountered due to the immobilization of the head required for the receipt of treatment, has difficulties patients with claustrophobia.

Acute adverse effects include skin erythema, alopecia, fatigue, altered sense of taste and smell, and serous otitis media. Memory loss, confusion, and leukoencephalopathy are late adverse effects. A higher burden of brain metastasis, higher integral dose to the calvarium, and use of WBRT are associated with an increased risk of development of leukoencephalopathy in long term survivors.

The benefits of whole-brain radiotherapy are conditional upon the fact that it may lead to a short term deterioration in the HRQoL, temporary hair loss, and fatigue, the potential for accelerated cognitive loss, and the requirement for multiple hospital visits. The possible risks of bone marrow toxicity, enteritis, and mucositis preclude the use of cerebrospinal radiotherapy in adult solid tumor patients with leptomeningeal metastasis, up to one-fifth of patients who received concomitant intrathecal methotrexate, dexamethasone, and focal radiotherapy presented with grade 3-4 adverse effects.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery

Concerning SRS, local effects must be distinguished by acute and late-onset toxicities.[116][117][118]

Local Effects

Pin site trauma, bleeding, and infection due to head frame placement.

Systemic Effects

Acute (within two weeks):

Headache, nausea, vomiting, seizures, and worsening neurological deficits, etiologically related to edema, are usually responsive to steroids.

Late (months to years):

Hemorrhage, necrosis, and treatment-related changes (increase in contrast enhancement, necrosis, edema, and mass effect). These may be difficult to distinguish from disease progression and require additional imaging techniques for diagnosis. Modalities used in the treatment of radiation-induced necrosis include steroids, hyperbaric oxygen, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody (bevacizumab), and surgical resection.

Late effects also include the potential risk of cranial neuropathies, including optic neuropathy, radiation necrosis, and vascular injury. Serious late toxicities of SRS are low.

Clinical Significance

Prognostication Tools

Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) developed by Gaspar et al. of the radiation therapy oncology group uses four different parameters: the Karnofsky performance status (KPS), the control of primary tumor, extracerebral disease, and age to classify patients into three different groups. While patients belonging to classes I and II are advised local control with either surgery, radiotherapy, or a combination of the two, those with RPA class III are advised best supportive care only. Disease-specific Gaspar analysis also uses the primary location of the tumor as an additional parameter in prognostication. While Karnofsky performance status and the number of metastasis remain constant across the disease spectrum, other factors differ across diseases. The presence or absence of extracellular matrix has been shown to impact prognosis in disease-specific graded prognostic assessment tools developed for use in gastric and colorectal adenocarcinomas and lung cancer.[119][120][7]

There have been recent attempts to include molecular alterations in the tumor, as can be evidenced by the development of RPA scores for lung cancer using molecular markers such as EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangement, in addition to age, KPS, presence of extracranial metastasis, and the number of brain metastasis. The molecular factors found to have prognostic significance in breast cancer and melanoma include the ER/PR and HER2/neu status and the presence of the BRAFV600E mutation, respectively.

Imaging and Response Assessment

A close assessment of the various criteria used in the assessment of response to treatment in those with CNS metastasis (WHO, RECIST, and Mac Donald criteria) reveals critical gaps in understanding of the definition of disease status and assessment of response to treatment. Issues that are relevant in assessing the extent of disease and response to treatment upon imaging include modality and frequency of assessment, choice of method of assessment (linear, two dimensional and volumetric), differentiation between tumor-related and treatment-related change, the definition of quantum of change that defines treatment response or disease progression, the utility of corticosteroid use, degree of concordance between signs and symptoms and changes on imaging and the impact of systemic disease status on CNS disease progression.[121][122][123][124]

The response assessment in neuro-oncology brain metastases (RANO-BM) committee reported consensus criteria, which defined measurable metastases as contrast-enhancing lesions less than 10 mm in diameter, and are based on the sum of the longest diameter of the target lesions (up to five lesions).

Response Assessment in Target Lesions

Complete response: The disappearance of all lesions, which is sustained for at least four weeks, with no appearance of new lesions, without the use of corticosteroids, with stable clinical status or clinical improvement in the patient's condition.
Partial response: 30 percent reduction in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions from the baseline, which is used as a reference, which is sustained for at least four weeks with no new lesions, with stable corticosteroid use, stable clinical status, or clinical improvement.
Progressive disease: At least a 20 percent increase in the sum of the longest lesion diameter, with the smallest sum on the study taken as reference. A single lesion should increase by a diameter of at least 5 mm to constitute progression.

Response Assessment for Non-target Lesions

These lesions include metastases with the longest diameter of less than 10 mm, lesions with borders that cannot be measured accurately, dural metastases, bony metastasis in the calvarium, cystic lesions only, and leptomeningeal metastasis has also been defined. These were not based upon measurement of individual lesions, but on qualitative measurements of evidence of disease progression on follow up imaging. Unequivocal progression of non-target lesions may constitute a basis for discontinuation of treatment. Pseudoprogression may be related to treatment response and requires advanced imaging investigations (in addition to routine MRI imaging).

Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging is a novel quantitative MRI technique that quantifies compounds, such as amide protons, amine protons, and fast exchanging hydroxyl protons, considered undetectable during structural MRI or even conventional MR spectroscopy. The principle underlying that technique involves the transfer of magnetization from aliphatic protons to labile protons known as the relayed nuclear Overhauser effect (rNOE). Reduced CEST signals and changes in the width NOE tumor peak and amplitude of peak on normal-appearing white matter, which predicted subsequent alterations in tumor volume, have been used to predict SRS response. CEST metrics involving rNOE and amide tumor magnetization ratios have been used to differentiate treatment-associated changes from tumor progression and assess treatment responses in areas such as the brainstem (which are not amenable to biopsy).

A major challenge to the inclusion of patients in clinical trials is the lack of standardization in measuring the extent of response assessment. According to RANO-BM criteria, patients in whom the metastases' size is less than 10 mm or 5 mm in diameter may be deemed to have an unmeasurable disease. Standardization of techniques involved in MRI acquisition parameters, including optimization of signal to noise ratios and specific contrast to noise ratios is necessary.

Definitions of survival which have been proposed by the RANO-BM consortium in relation to radiological response assessment in clinical trials include bicompartmental progression-free survival (includes CNS lesions, distant CNS lesions, and non-CNS lesions), CNS progression-free survival, which involves local and distant CNS lesions, non-CNS progression-free survival includes non-CNS lesions only and CNS local progression-free survival which includes CNS lesions only. The inclusion of other parameters that measure the HRQoL, the quantum of corticosteroid use, the progression of clinical neurological symptoms, and neurocognitive function also constitutes important parameters for judging response assessment in clinical trials.

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

With the advent of systemic approaches targeting the tumor and advances in radiotherapy techniques, patients' careful selection has assumed greater importance. The use of disease-specific prognostication systems with molecular parameters has put the focus squarely on prognostication. Although it is important to avoid treating those with limited prognosis, it is equally important to provide up to date management to deserving patients. While SRS becomes the standard of care, prevention of neurocognitive decline with HA-WBRT and neuroprotective agents' use holds the promise of improved HRQoL. An interdisciplinary approach that includes a disease management group consultation to provide patient-centered care remains the need of the hour.

The demarcation between tumor recurrence and radiotherapy related changes remains a subject of further research and demands closer integration of radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists within the multidisciplinary team. Autosegmentation for precise contouring, model-based automated target delineation, automatic generation of treatment plans, and use of omics driven radiation therapy (incorporating omics derived information for treatment planning) are recommended treatment approaches for the future.

References

[1]

Ou SI, Zhu VW. CNS metastasis in ROS1+ NSCLC: An urgent call to action, to understand, and to overcome. Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2019 Apr:130():201-207. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.02.025. Epub 2019 Feb 22 [PubMed PMID: 30885345]

[2]

Lowery FJ, Yu D. Brain metastasis: Unique challenges and open opportunities. Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer. 2017 Jan:1867(1):49-57. doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2016.12.001. Epub 2016 Dec 6 [PubMed PMID: 27939792]

[3]

Ostrom QT, Wright CH, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. Brain metastases: epidemiology. Handbook of clinical neurology. 2018:149():27-42. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811161-1.00002-5. Epub [PubMed PMID: 29307358]

[4]

Mampre D,Ehresman J,Alvarado-Estrada K,Wijesekera O,Sarabia-Estrada R,Quinones-Hinojosa A,Chaichana KL, Propensity for different vascular distributions and cerebral edema of intraparenchymal brain metastases from different primary cancers. Journal of neuro-oncology. 2019 May; [PubMed PMID: 30835021]

[5]

Hall WA, Djalilian HR, Nussbaum ES, Cho KH. Long-term survival with metastatic cancer to the brain. Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England). 2000 Nov:17(4):279-86 [PubMed PMID: 11114706]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[6]

Arvold ND, Lee EQ, Mehta MP, Margolin K, Alexander BM, Lin NU, Anders CK, Soffietti R, Camidge DR, Vogelbaum MA, Dunn IF, Wen PY. Updates in the management of brain metastases. Neuro-oncology. 2016 Aug:18(8):1043-65. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/now127. Epub [PubMed PMID: 27382120]

[7]

Stelzer KJ. Epidemiology and prognosis of brain metastases. Surgical neurology international. 2013:4(Suppl 4):S192-202. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.111296. Epub 2013 May 2 [PubMed PMID: 23717790]

[8]

Saito N,Hatori T,Murata N,Zhang ZA,Nonaka H,Aoki K,Iwabuchi S,Ueda M, Comparison of metastatic brain tumour models using three different methods: the morphological role of the pia mater. International journal of experimental pathology. 2008 Feb; [PubMed PMID: 17999679]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[9]

Berghoff AS, Preusser M. The inflammatory microenvironment in brain metastases: potential treatment target? Chinese clinical oncology. 2015 Jun:4(2):21. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2015.06.03. Epub [PubMed PMID: 26112807]

[10]

Lauko A, Rauf Y, Ahluwalia MS. Medical management of brain metastases. Neuro-oncology advances. 2020 Jan-Dec:2(1):vdaa015. doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdaa015. Epub 2020 Aug 9 [PubMed PMID: 32793881]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[11]

Ahluwalia MS, Winkler F. Targeted and immunotherapeutic approaches in brain metastases. American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting. 2015:():67-74. doi: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2015.35.67. Epub [PubMed PMID: 25993144]

[12]

Grosu AL,Frings L,Bentsalo I,Oehlke O,Brenner F,Bilger A,Fennell JT,Rothe T,Schneider-Fuchs S,Graf E,Schmoor C,Beck J,Becker G,Bock M,Egger K,Urbach H,Lahmann C,Popp I, Whole-brain irradiation with hippocampal sparing and dose escalation on metastases: neurocognitive testing and biological imaging (HIPPORAD) - a phase II prospective randomized multicenter trial (NOA-14, ARO 2015-3, DKTK-ROG). BMC cancer. 2020 Jun 8; [PubMed PMID: 32513138]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[13]

Iorio-Morin C, Masson-Côté L, Ezahr Y, Blanchard J, Ebacher A, Mathieu D. Early Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery to the tumor bed of resected brain metastasis for improved local control. Journal of neurosurgery. 2014 Dec:121 Suppl():69-74. doi: 10.3171/2014.7.GKS141488. Epub [PubMed PMID: 25434939]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[14]

Gondi V, Pugh SL, Tome WA, Caine C, Corn B, Kanner A, Rowley H, Kundapur V, DeNittis A, Greenspoon JN, Konski AA, Bauman GS, Shah S, Shi W, Wendland M, Kachnic L, Mehta MP. Preservation of memory with conformal avoidance of the hippocampal neural stem-cell compartment during whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases (RTOG 0933): a phase II multi-institutional trial. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2014 Dec 1:32(34):3810-6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.2909. Epub 2014 Oct 27 [PubMed PMID: 25349290]

[15]

Di Giacomo AM, Valente M, Cerase A, Lofiego MF, Piazzini F, Calabrò L, Gambale E, Covre A, Maio M. Immunotherapy of brain metastases: breaking a "dogma". Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR. 2019 Oct 17:38(1):419. doi: 10.1186/s13046-019-1426-2. Epub 2019 Oct 17 [PubMed PMID: 31623643]

[16]

Buecker R,Hong ZY,Liu XM,Jaenke G,Lu P,Schaefer U, Risk factors to identify patients who may not benefit from whole brain irradiation for brain metastases - a single institution analysis. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2019 Mar 11; [PubMed PMID: 30866972]

[17]

Schüttrumpf LH, Niyazi M, Nachbichler SB, Manapov F, Jansen N, Siefert A, Belka C. Prognostic factors for survival and radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery alone or in combination with whole brain radiation therapy for 1-3 cerebral metastases. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2014 May 2:9():105. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-9-105. Epub 2014 May 2 [PubMed PMID: 24885624]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[18]

CHAO JH, PHILLIPS R, NICKSON JJ. Roentgen-ray therapy of cerebral metastases. Cancer. 1954 Jul:7(4):682-9 [PubMed PMID: 13172684]

[19]

Borgelt B, Gelber R, Larson M, Hendrickson F, Griffin T, Roth R. Ultra-rapid high dose irradiation schedules for the palliation of brain metastases: final results of the first two studies by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 1981 Dec:7(12):1633-8 [PubMed PMID: 6174490]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[20]

Liddelow SA. Development of the choroid plexus and blood-CSF barrier. Frontiers in neuroscience. 2015:9():32. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00032. Epub 2015 Mar 3 [PubMed PMID: 25784848]

[21]

Milhorat TH. Structure and function of the choroid plexus and other sites of cerebrospinal fluid formation. International review of cytology. 1976:47():225-88 [PubMed PMID: 136427]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[22]

Boire A, Zou Y, Shieh J, Macalinao DG, Pentsova E, Massagué J. Complement Component 3 Adapts the Cerebrospinal Fluid for Leptomeningeal Metastasis. Cell. 2017 Mar 9:168(6):1101-1113.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.02.025. Epub [PubMed PMID: 28283064]

[23]

Seyfried TN, Huysentruyt LC. On the origin of cancer metastasis. Critical reviews in oncogenesis. 2013:18(1-2):43-73 [PubMed PMID: 23237552]

[24]

Bos PD, Zhang XH, Nadal C, Shu W, Gomis RR, Nguyen DX, Minn AJ, van de Vijver MJ, Gerald WL, Foekens JA, Massagué J. Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to the brain. Nature. 2009 Jun 18:459(7249):1005-9. doi: 10.1038/nature08021. Epub 2009 May 6 [PubMed PMID: 19421193]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[25]

Fares J, Fares MY, Khachfe HH, Salhab HA, Fares Y. Molecular principles of metastasis: a hallmark of cancer revisited. Signal transduction and targeted therapy. 2020 Mar 12:5(1):28. doi: 10.1038/s41392-020-0134-x. Epub 2020 Mar 12 [PubMed PMID: 32296047]

[26]

Linskey ME, Stereotactic radiosurgery versus stereotactic radiotherapy for patients with vestibular schwannoma: a Leksell Gamma Knife Society 2000 debate. Journal of neurosurgery. 2000 Dec; [PubMed PMID: 11143270]

[27]

Santacroce A, Kamp MA, Budach W, Hänggi D. Radiobiology of radiosurgery for the central nervous system. BioMed research international. 2013:2013():362761. doi: 10.1155/2013/362761. Epub 2013 Dec 29 [PubMed PMID: 24490157]

[28]

Bernhardt D, Adeberg S, Bozorgmehr F, Opfermann N, Hoerner-Rieber J, König L, Kappes J, Thomas M, Herth F, Heußel CP, Warth A, Debus J, Steins M, Rieken S. Outcome and prognostic factors in patients with brain metastases from small-cell lung cancer treated with whole brain radiotherapy. Journal of neuro-oncology. 2017 Aug:134(1):205-212. doi: 10.1007/s11060-017-2510-0. Epub 2017 May 30 [PubMed PMID: 28560661]

[29]

Tsao MN, Lloyd N, Wong RK, Chow E, Rakovitch E, Laperriere N, Xu W, Sahgal A. Whole brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2012 Apr 18:2012(4):CD003869. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003869.pub3. Epub 2012 Apr 18 [PubMed PMID: 22513917]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[30]

Gaspar LE, Prabhu RS, Hdeib A, McCracken DJ, Lasker GF, McDermott MW, Kalkanis SN, Olson JJ. Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Role of Whole Brain Radiation Therapy in Adults With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Brain Tumors. Neurosurgery. 2019 Mar 1:84(3):E159-E162. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy541. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30629211]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[31]

Eaton BR, Gebhardt B, Prabhu R, Shu HK, Curran WJ Jr, Crocker I. Hypofractionated radiosurgery for intact or resected brain metastases: defining the optimal dose and fractionation. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2013 Jun 7:8():135. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-135. Epub 2013 Jun 7 [PubMed PMID: 23759065]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[32]

Masucci GL. Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Large Brain Metastases. Frontiers in oncology. 2018:8():379. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00379. Epub 2018 Oct 2 [PubMed PMID: 30333955]

[33]

Kazda T, Pospíšil P, Doleželová H, Jančálek R, Slampa P. Whole brain radiotherapy: Consequences for personalized medicine. Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology. 2013 Apr 19:18(3):133-8. doi: 10.1016/j.rpor.2013.03.002. Epub 2013 Apr 19 [PubMed PMID: 24416544]

[34]

Soffietti R,Rudā R,Mutani R, Management of brain metastases. Journal of neurology. 2002 Oct; [PubMed PMID: 12382150]

[35]

Elaimy AL, Mackay AR, Lamoreaux WT, Fairbanks RK, Demakas JJ, Cooke BS, Peressini BJ, Holbrook JT, Lee CM. Multimodality treatment of brain metastases: an institutional survival analysis of 275 patients. World journal of surgical oncology. 2011 Jul 5:9():69. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-9-69. Epub 2011 Jul 5 [PubMed PMID: 21729314]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[36]

Farris M, McTyre ER, Cramer CK, Hughes R, Randolph DM 2nd, Ayala-Peacock DN, Bourland JD, Ruiz J, Watabe K, Laxton AW, Tatter SB, Zhou X, Chan MD. Brain Metastasis Velocity: A Novel Prognostic Metric Predictive of Overall Survival and Freedom From Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy After Distant Brain Failure Following Upfront Radiosurgery Alone. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2017 May 1:98(1):131-141. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.201. Epub 2017 Jan 26 [PubMed PMID: 28586952]

[37]

Kotecha R, Gondi V, Ahluwalia MS, Brastianos PK, Mehta MP. Recent advances in managing brain metastasis. F1000Research. 2018:7():. pii: F1000 Faculty Rev-1772. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15903.1. Epub 2018 Nov 9 [PubMed PMID: 30473769]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[38]

Okoukoni C,McTyre ER,Ayala Peacock DN,Peiffer AM,Strowd R,Cramer C,Hinson WH,Rapp S,Metheny-Barlow L,Shaw EG,Chan MD, Hippocampal dose volume histogram predicts Hopkins Verbal Learning Test scores after brain irradiation. Advances in radiation oncology. 2017 Oct-Dec; [PubMed PMID: 29204530]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[39]

Gondi V, Tomé WA, Mehta MP. Why avoid the hippocampus? A comprehensive review. Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. 2010 Dec:97(3):370-6. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.09.013. Epub 2010 Oct 20 [PubMed PMID: 20970214]

[40]

Tsai PF, Yang CC, Chuang CC, Huang TY, Wu YM, Pai PC, Tseng CK, Wu TH, Shen YL, Lin SY. Hippocampal dosimetry correlates with the change in neurocognitive function after hippocampal sparing during whole brain radiotherapy: a prospective study. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2015 Dec 10:10():253. doi: 10.1186/s13014-015-0562-x. Epub 2015 Dec 10 [PubMed PMID: 26654128]

[41]

Brown PD, Gondi V, Pugh S, Tome WA, Wefel JS, Armstrong TS, Bovi JA, Robinson C, Konski A, Khuntia D, Grosshans D, Benzinger TLS, Bruner D, Gilbert MR, Roberge D, Kundapur V, Devisetty K, Shah S, Usuki K, Anderson BM, Stea B, Yoon H, Li J, Laack NN, Kruser TJ, Chmura SJ, Shi W, Deshmukh S, Mehta MP, Kachnic LA, for NRG Oncology. Hippocampal Avoidance During Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Plus Memantine for Patients With Brain Metastases: Phase III Trial NRG Oncology CC001. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2020 Apr 1:38(10):1019-1029. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02767. Epub 2020 Feb 14 [PubMed PMID: 32058845]

[42]

Rolando C,Taylor V, Neural stem cell of the hippocampus: development, physiology regulation, and dysfunction in disease. Current topics in developmental biology. 2014; [PubMed PMID: 24439807]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[43]

Yamaguchi M, Seki T, Imayoshi I, Tamamaki N, Hayashi Y, Tatebayashi Y, Hitoshi S. Neural stem cells and neuro/gliogenesis in the central nervous system: understanding the structural and functional plasticity of the developing, mature, and diseased brain. The journal of physiological sciences : JPS. 2016 May:66(3):197-206. doi: 10.1007/s12576-015-0421-4. Epub 2015 Nov 17 [PubMed PMID: 26578509]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[44]

Piatti VC, Ewell LA, Leutgeb JK. Neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus: carrying the message or dictating the tone. Frontiers in neuroscience. 2013:7():50. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00050. Epub 2013 Apr 4 [PubMed PMID: 23576950]

[45]

Bender ET, Mehta MP, Tomé WA. On the estimation of the location of the hippocampus in the context of hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiotherapy treatment planning. Technology in cancer research & treatment. 2009 Dec:8(6):425-32 [PubMed PMID: 19925026]

[46]

Nieder C, Andratschke N, Astner ST. Experimental concepts for toxicity prevention and tissue restoration after central nervous system irradiation. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2007 Jun 30:2():23 [PubMed PMID: 17603905]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[47]

Wu PH, Coultrap S, Pinnix C, Davies KD, Tailor R, Ang KK, Browning MD, Grosshans DR. Radiation induces acute alterations in neuronal function. PloS one. 2012:7(5):e37677. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037677. Epub 2012 May 25 [PubMed PMID: 22662188]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[48]

Day J, Zienius K, Gehring K, Grosshans D, Taphoorn M, Grant R, Li J, Brown PD. Interventions for preventing and ameliorating cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014 Dec 18:2014(12):CD011335. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub2. Epub 2014 Dec 18 [PubMed PMID: 25519950]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[49]

Brown PD,Pugh S,Laack NN,Wefel JS,Khuntia D,Meyers C,Choucair A,Fox S,Suh JH,Roberge D,Kavadi V,Bentzen SM,Mehta MP,Watkins-Bruner D, Memantine for the prevention of cognitive dysfunction in patients receiving whole-brain radiotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neuro-oncology. 2013 Oct; [PubMed PMID: 23956241]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[50]

Belarbi K, Jopson T, Arellano C, Fike JR, Rosi S. CCR2 deficiency prevents neuronal dysfunction and cognitive impairments induced by cranial irradiation. Cancer research. 2013 Feb 1:73(3):1201-10. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2989. Epub 2012 Dec 13 [PubMed PMID: 23243025]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[51]

Gondi V, Hermann BP, Mehta MP, Tomé WA. Hippocampal dosimetry predicts neurocognitive function impairment after fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for benign or low-grade adult brain tumors. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2012 Jul 15:83(4):e487-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.021. Epub 2011 Dec 29 [PubMed PMID: 22209148]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[52]

Zhang D, Zhou W, Lam TT, Li Y, Duman JG, Dougherty PM, Grosshans DR. Cranial irradiation induces axon initial segment dysfunction and neuronal injury in the prefrontal cortex and impairs hippocampal coupling. Neuro-oncology advances. 2020 Jan-Dec:2(1):vdaa058. doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdaa058. Epub 2020 May 11 [PubMed PMID: 32642710]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[53]

Acharya MM, Green KN, Allen BD, Najafi AR, Syage A, Minasyan H, Le MT, Kawashita T, Giedzinski E, Parihar VK, West BL, Baulch JE, Limoli CL. Elimination of microglia improves cognitive function following cranial irradiation. Scientific reports. 2016 Aug 12:6():31545. doi: 10.1038/srep31545. Epub 2016 Aug 12 [PubMed PMID: 27516055]

[54]

Rapp SR, Case LD, Peiffer A, Naughton MM, Chan MD, Stieber VW, Moore DF Jr, Falchuk SC, Piephoff JV, Edenfield WJ, Giguere JK, Loghin ME, Shaw EG. Donepezil for Irradiated Brain Tumor Survivors: A Phase III Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2015 May 20:33(15):1653-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.4508. Epub 2015 Apr 20 [PubMed PMID: 25897156]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[55]

Lynch M. Preservation of cognitive function following whole brain radiotherapy in patients with brain metastases: Complications, treatments, and the emerging role of memantine. Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners. 2019 Apr:25(3):657-662. doi: 10.1177/1078155218798176. Epub 2018 Sep 10 [PubMed PMID: 30200844]

[56]

Nguyen TK,Sahgal A,Detsky J,Soliman H,Myrehaug S,Tseng CL,Husain ZA,Carty A,Das S,Yang V,Lee Y,Sarfehnia A,Chugh BP,Yeboah C,Ruschin M, Single-Fraction Stereotactic Radiosurgery Versus Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole Brain Radiation Therapy for Patients With 10 to 30 Brain Metastases: A Dosimetric Analysis. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2019 Oct 1; [PubMed PMID: 31283978]

[57]

Yuen AHL, Wu PM, Li AKL, Mak PCY. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy: planning comparison with Dual-arc and Split-arc partial-field techniques. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2020 Feb 18:15(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s13014-020-01488-5. Epub 2020 Feb 18 [PubMed PMID: 32070385]

[58]

Agarwal JP, Chakraborty S, Laskar SG, Mummudi N, Patil VM, Upasani M, Prabhash K, Noronha V, Joshi A, Purandare N, Tandon S, Arora J, Badhe R. Applying the QUARTZ Trial Results in Clinical Practice: Development of a Prognostic Model Predicting Poor Outcomes for Non-small Cell Lung Cancers with Brain Metastases. Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)). 2018 Jun:30(6):382-390. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2018.02.002. Epub 2018 Mar 2 [PubMed PMID: 29499878]

[59]

Mulvenna P, Nankivell M, Barton R, Faivre-Finn C, Wilson P, McColl E, Moore B, Brisbane I, Ardron D, Holt T, Morgan S, Lee C, Waite K, Bayman N, Pugh C, Sydes B, Stephens R, Parmar MK, Langley RE. Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet (London, England). 2016 Oct 22:388(10055):2004-2014. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30825-X. Epub 2016 Sep 4 [PubMed PMID: 27604504]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[60]

Zhen J, Wen L, Lai M, Zhou Z, Shan C, Li S, Lin T, Wu J, Wang W, Xu S, Liu D, Lu M, Zhu D, Chen L, Cai L, Zhou C. Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for leptomeningeal metastasis from NSCLC in the era of targeted therapy: a retrospective study. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2020 Jul 31:15(1):185. doi: 10.1186/s13014-020-01627-y. Epub 2020 Jul 31 [PubMed PMID: 32736566]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[61]

Mack F, Baumert BG, Schäfer N, Hattingen E, Scheffler B, Herrlinger U, Glas M. Therapy of leptomeningeal metastasis in solid tumors. Cancer treatment reviews. 2016 Feb:43():83-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.12.004. Epub 2015 Dec 24 [PubMed PMID: 26827696]

[62]

Niska JR, Keole SR, Pockaj BA, Halyard MY, Patel SH, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Wasif N, Vargas CE, Wong WW. Choosing wisely after publication of level I evidence in breast cancer radiotherapy. Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press). 2018:10():31-37. doi: 10.2147/BCTT.S153117. Epub 2018 Feb 9 [PubMed PMID: 29445299]

[63]

Bilger A,Bretzinger E,Fennell J,Nieder C,Lorenz H,Oehlke O,Grosu AL,Specht HM,Combs SE, Local control and possibility of tailored salvage after hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of the cavity after brain metastases resection. Cancer medicine. 2018 Jun; [PubMed PMID: 29745035]

[64]

Graber JJ, Cobbs CS, Olson JJ. Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Use of Stereotactic Radiosurgery in the Treatment of Adults With Metastatic Brain Tumors. Neurosurgery. 2019 Mar 1:84(3):E168-E170. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy543. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30629225]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[65]

Soliman H, Das S, Larson DA, Sahgal A. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the modern management of patients with brain metastases. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15:7(11):12318-30. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7131. Epub [PubMed PMID: 26848525]

[66]

Gans JH, Raper DM, Shah AH, Bregy A, Heros D, Lally BE, Morcos JJ, Heros RC, Komotar RJ. The role of radiosurgery to the tumor bed after resection of brain metastases. Neurosurgery. 2013 Mar:72(3):317-25; discussion 325-6. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31827fcd60. Epub [PubMed PMID: 23208065]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[67]

Natarajan BD,Rushing CN,Cummings MA,Jutzy JM,Choudhury KR,Moravan MJ,Fecci PE,Adamson J,Chmura SJ,Milano MT,Kirkpatrick JP,Salama JK, Predicting intracranial progression following stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Implications for post SRS imaging. Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT. 2019; [PubMed PMID: 31998538]

[68]

Mathieu D, Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, Fortin D, Kenny B, Michaud K, Mongia S, Niranjan A, Lunsford LD. Tumor bed radiosurgery after resection of cerebral metastases. Neurosurgery. 2008 Apr:62(4):817-23; discussion 823-4. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000316899.55501.8b. Epub [PubMed PMID: 18414136]

[69]

Lehrer EJ, McGee HM, Peterson JL, Vallow L, Ruiz-Garcia H, Zaorsky NG, Sharma S, Trifiletti DM. Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Management of Brain Metastases. International journal of molecular sciences. 2018 Oct 7:19(10):. doi: 10.3390/ijms19103054. Epub 2018 Oct 7 [PubMed PMID: 30301252]

[70]

Lin CS, Selch MT, Lee SP, Wu JK, Xiao F, Hong DS, Chen CH, Hussain A, Lee PP, De Salles AA. Accelerator-based stereotactic radiosurgery for brainstem metastases. Neurosurgery. 2012 Apr:70(4):953-8; discussion 958. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31823c40fe. Epub [PubMed PMID: 21997541]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[71]

Gilbo P, Zhang I, Knisely J. Stereotactic radiosurgery of the brain: a review of common indications. Chinese clinical oncology. 2017 Sep:6(Suppl 2):S14. doi: 10.21037/cco.2017.06.07. Epub [PubMed PMID: 28917252]

[72]

Mazzola R, Corradini S, Gregucci F, Figlia V, Fiorentino A, Alongi F. Role of Radiosurgery/Stereotactic Radiotherapy in Oligometastatic Disease: Brain Oligometastases. Frontiers in oncology. 2019:9():206. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00206. Epub 2019 Apr 4 [PubMed PMID: 31019891]

[73]

Routman DM, Yan E, Vora S, Peterson J, Mahajan A, Chaichana KL, Laack N, Brown PD, Parney IF, Burns TC, Trifiletti DM. Preoperative Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases. Frontiers in neurology. 2018:9():959. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00959. Epub 2018 Nov 13 [PubMed PMID: 30542316]

[74]

Sayan M,Zoto Mustafayev T,Sahin B,Kefelioglu ESS,Wang SJ,Kurup V,Balmuk A,Gungor G,Ohri N,Weiner J,Ozyar E,Atalar B, Evaluation of response to stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with radioresistant brain metastases. Radiation oncology journal. 2019 Dec; [PubMed PMID: 31918464]

[75]

Amsbaugh M, Pan J, Yusuf MB, Dragun A, Dunlap N, Guan T, Boling W, Rai S, Woo S. Dose-Volume Response Relationship for Brain Metastases Treated with Frameless Single-Fraction Linear Accelerator-Based Stereotactic Radiosurgery. Cureus. 2016 Apr 27:8(4):e587. doi: 10.7759/cureus.587. Epub 2016 Apr 27 [PubMed PMID: 27284495]

[76]

Hanson PW, Elaimy AL, Lamoreaux WT, Demakas JJ, Fairbanks RK, Mackay AR, Taylor B, Cooke BS, Thumma SR, Lee CM. A concise review of the efficacy of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of melanoma and renal cell carcinoma brain metastases. World journal of surgical oncology. 2012 Aug 29:10():176. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-176. Epub 2012 Aug 29 [PubMed PMID: 22931379]

[77]

Sahgal A, Ruschin M, Ma L, Verbakel W, Larson D, Brown PD. Stereotactic radiosurgery alone for multiple brain metastases? A review of clinical and technical issues. Neuro-oncology. 2017 Apr 1:19(suppl_2):ii2-ii15. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nox001. Epub [PubMed PMID: 28380635]

[78]

Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, Dinapoli R, Kline R, Loeffler J, Farnan N. Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2000 May 1:47(2):291-8 [PubMed PMID: 10802351]

[79]

Nieder C, Yobuta R, Mannsåker B. Second Re-irradiation of Brain Metastases: A Review of Studies Involving Stereotactic Radiosurgery. Cureus. 2018 Dec 11:10(12):e3712. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3712. Epub 2018 Dec 11 [PubMed PMID: 30788201]

[80]

Davey P, Schwartz M, Scora D, Gardner S, O'Brien PF. Fractionated (split dose) radiosurgery in patients with recurrent brain metastases: implications for survival. British journal of neurosurgery. 2007 Oct:21(5):491-5 [PubMed PMID: 17852114]

[81]

Elhateer H, Muanza T, Roberge D, Ruo R, Eldebawy E, Lambert C, Patrocinio H, Shenouda G, Souhami L. Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in the treatment of pituitary macroadenomas. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.). 2008 Dec:15(6):286-92 [PubMed PMID: 19079630]

[82]

Aupérin A, Arriagada R, Pignon JP, Le Péchoux C, Gregor A, Stephens RJ, Kristjansen PE, Johnson BE, Ueoka H, Wagner H, Aisner J. Prophylactic cranial irradiation for patients with small-cell lung cancer in complete remission. Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Overview Collaborative Group. The New England journal of medicine. 1999 Aug 12:341(7):476-84 [PubMed PMID: 10441603]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[83]

Farris MK, Wheless WH, Hughes RT, Soike MH, Masters AH, Helis CA, Chan MD, Cramer CK, Ruiz J, Lycan T, Petty WJ, Ahmed T, Leyrer CM, Blackstock AW. Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: Is Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Necessary? Practical radiation oncology. 2019 Nov:9(6):e599-e607. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.06.014. Epub 2019 Jul 2 [PubMed PMID: 31271904]

[84]

Lin D, Lehrer EJ, Rosenberg J, Trifiletti DM, Zaorsky NG. Toxicity after radiotherapy in patients with historically accepted contraindications to treatment (CONTRAD): An international systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. 2019 Jun:135():147-152. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.03.006. Epub 2019 Mar 27 [PubMed PMID: 31015161]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[85]

Pollard JM, Gatti RA. Clinical radiation sensitivity with DNA repair disorders: an overview. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2009 Aug 1:74(5):1323-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.02.057. Epub [PubMed PMID: 19616740]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[86]

Bergom C, West CM, Higginson DS, Abazeed ME, Arun B, Bentzen SM, Bernstein JL, Evans JD, Gerber NK, Kerns SL, Keen J, Litton JK, Reiner AS, Riaz N, Rosenstein BS, Sawakuchi GO, Shaitelman SF, Powell SN, Woodward WA. The Implications of Genetic Testing on Radiation Therapy Decisions: A Guide for Radiation Oncologists. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2019 Nov 15:105(4):698-712. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.07.026. Epub 2019 Aug 2 [PubMed PMID: 31381960]

[87]

Chen JC, Girvigian MR. Stereotactic radiosurgery: instrumentation and theoretical aspects-part 1. The Permanente journal. 2005 Fall:9(4):23-6 [PubMed PMID: 22811641]

[88]

Tsao MN,Lloyd NS,Wong RK,Rakovitch E,Chow E,Laperriere N, Radiotherapeutic management of brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer treatment reviews. 2005 Jun; [PubMed PMID: 15951117]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[89]

Bush RS. Quality assurance in radiation therapy: clinical and physical aspects. Future plans: clinical. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 1984 Jun:10 Suppl 1():39-41 [PubMed PMID: 6735794]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[90]

Kresl JJ, Drummond RL. A historical perspective of the radiation oncology workforce and ongoing initiatives to impact recruitment and retention. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2004 Sep 1:60(1):8-14 [PubMed PMID: 15337534]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[91]

Oermann E, Collins BT, Erickson KT, Yu X, Lei S, Suy S, Hanscom HN, Kim J, Park HU, Eldabh A, Kalhorn C, McGrail K, Subramaniam D, Jean WC, Collins SP. CyberKnife enhanced conventionally fractionated chemoradiation for high grade glioma in close proximity to critical structures. Journal of hematology & oncology. 2010 Jun 9:3():22. doi: 10.1186/1756-8722-3-22. Epub 2010 Jun 9 [PubMed PMID: 20534128]

[92]

Purdy JA, Dose to normal tissues outside the radiation therapy patient's treated volume: a review of different radiation therapy techniques. Health physics. 2008 Nov; [PubMed PMID: 18849701]

[93]

Leech M, Coffey M, Mast M, Moura F, Osztavics A, Pasini D, Vaandering A. ESTRO ACROP guidelines for positioning, immobilisation and position verification of head and neck patients for radiation therapists. Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology. 2017 Mar:1():1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2016.12.001. Epub 2017 Jan 5 [PubMed PMID: 32095536]

[94]

Tominaga H, Araki F, Shimohigashi Y, Ishihara T, Kawasaki K, Kanetake N, Sakata J, Iwashita Y. Accuracy of positioning and irradiation targeting for multiple targets in intracranial image-guided radiation therapy: a phantom study. Physics in medicine and biology. 2014 Dec 21:59(24):7753-66. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/24/7753. Epub [PubMed PMID: 25419723]

[95]

Gupta T, Upasani M, Master Z, Patil A, Phurailatpam R, Nojin S, Kannan S, Godasastri J, Jalali R. Assessment of three-dimensional set-up errors using megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) during image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) on helical tomotherapy (HT). Technology in cancer research & treatment. 2015 Feb:14(1):29-36. doi: 10.7785/tcrt.2012.500391. Epub 2014 Nov 11 [PubMed PMID: 24325133]

[96]

Gram D, Haraldsson A, Brodin NP, Nysom K, Björk-Eriksson T, Munck Af Rosenschöld P. Residual positioning errors and uncertainties for pediatric craniospinal irradiation and the impact of image guidance. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2020 Jun 10:15(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s13014-020-01588-2. Epub 2020 Jun 10 [PubMed PMID: 32522233]

[97]

Casanova N, Mazouni Z, Bieri S, Combescure C, Pica A, Weber DC. Whole brain radiotherapy with a conformational external beam radiation boost for lung cancer patients with 1-3 brain metastasis: a multi institutional study. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2010 Feb 18:5():13. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-5-13. Epub 2010 Feb 18 [PubMed PMID: 20167107]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[98]

Verellen D, De Ridder M, Linthout N, Tournel K, Soete G, Storme G. Innovations in image-guided radiotherapy. Nature reviews. Cancer. 2007 Dec:7(12):949-60 [PubMed PMID: 18034185]

[99]

McMahon RL, Larrier NA, Wu QJ. An image-guided technique for planning and verification of supine craniospinal irradiation. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2011 Jan 31:12(2):3310 [PubMed PMID: 21587173]

[100]

Hansen AT, Lukacova S, Lassen-Ramshad Y, Petersen JB. Comparison of a new noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique for craniospinal irradiation with 3 coplanar techniques. Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. 2015 Winter:40(4):296-303. doi: 10.1016/j.meddos.2015.03.007. Epub 2015 May 19 [PubMed PMID: 26002123]

[101]

Mazzara GP, Velthuizen RP, Pearlman JL, Greenberg HM, Wagner H. Brain tumor target volume determination for radiation treatment planning through automated MRI segmentation. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2004 May 1:59(1):300-12 [PubMed PMID: 15093927]

[102]

Wu CC, Wuu YR, Jani A, Saraf A, Tai CH, Lapa ME, Andrew JIS, Tiwari A, Saadatmand HJ, Isaacson SR, Cheng SK, Wang TJC. Whole-brain Irradiation Field Design: A Comparison of Parotid Dose. Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. 2017 Summer:42(2):145-149. doi: 10.1016/j.meddos.2017.02.006. Epub 2017 May 4 [PubMed PMID: 28479012]

[103]

Li Z, Shen D, Zhang J, Zhang J, Yang F, Kong D, Kong J, Zhang A. Relationship between WBRT total dose, intracranial tumor control, and overall survival in NSCLC patients with brain metastases - a single-center retrospective analysis. BMC cancer. 2019 Nov 14:19(1):1104. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-6307-8. Epub 2019 Nov 14 [PubMed PMID: 31727054]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[104]

Choi CY, Chang SD, Gibbs IC, Adler JR, Harsh GR 4th, Lieberson RE, Soltys SG. Stereotactic radiosurgery of the postoperative resection cavity for brain metastases: prospective evaluation of target margin on tumor control. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2012 Oct 1:84(2):336-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.009. Epub 2012 May 30 [PubMed PMID: 22652105]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[105]

Hardcastle N,Tome WA, On a single isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy SRS planning technique for multiple brain metastases. Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT. 2012; [PubMed PMID: 29296337]

[106]

Nahed BV, Alvarez-Breckenridge C, Brastianos PK, Shih H, Sloan A, Ammirati M, Kuo JS, Ryken TC, Kalkanis SN, Olson JJ. Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Role of Surgery in the Management of Adults With Metastatic Brain Tumors. Neurosurgery. 2019 Mar 1:84(3):E152-E155. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy542. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30629227]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[107]

Brennan C, Yang TJ, Hilden P, Zhang Z, Chan K, Yamada Y, Chan TA, Lymberis SC, Narayana A, Tabar V, Gutin PH, Ballangrud Å, Lis E, Beal K. A phase 2 trial of stereotactic radiosurgery boost after surgical resection for brain metastases. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2014 Jan 1:88(1):130-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.09.051. Epub [PubMed PMID: 24331659]

[108]

Franchino F, Rudà R, Soffietti R. Mechanisms and Therapy for Cancer Metastasis to the Brain. Frontiers in oncology. 2018:8():161. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00161. Epub 2018 May 24 [PubMed PMID: 29881714]

[109]

Soliman H, Ruschin M, Angelov L, Brown PD, Chiang VLS, Kirkpatrick JP, Lo SS, Mahajan A, Oh KS, Sheehan JP, Soltys SG, Sahgal A. Consensus Contouring Guidelines for Postoperative Completely Resected Cavity Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2018 Feb 1:100(2):436-442. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.09.047. Epub 2017 Oct 4 [PubMed PMID: 29157748]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[110]

Gutiérrez AN, Westerly DC, Tomé WA, Jaradat HA, Mackie TR, Bentzen SM, Khuntia D, Mehta MP. Whole brain radiotherapy with hippocampal avoidance and simultaneously integrated brain metastases boost: a planning study. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2007 Oct 1:69(2):589-97 [PubMed PMID: 17869672]

[111]

Jiang A, Sun W, Zhao F, Wu Z, Shang D, Yu Q, Wang S, Zhu J, Yang F, Yuan S. Dosimetric evaluation of four whole brain radiation therapy approaches with hippocampus and inner ear avoidance and simultaneous integrated boost for limited brain metastases. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2019 Mar 15:14(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s13014-019-1255-7. Epub 2019 Mar 15 [PubMed PMID: 30876444]

[112]

Patil CG, Pricola K, Sarmiento JM, Garg SK, Bryant A, Black KL. Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) alone versus WBRT and radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastases. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017 Sep 25:9(9):CD006121. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006121.pub4. Epub 2017 Sep 25 [PubMed PMID: 28945270]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[113]

Brown PD, Ahluwalia MS, Khan OH, Asher AL, Wefel JS, Gondi V. Whole-Brain Radiotherapy for Brain Metastases: Evolution or Revolution? Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2018 Feb 10:36(5):483-491. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.9589. Epub 2017 Dec 22 [PubMed PMID: 29272161]

[114]

Ebi J, Sato H, Nakajima M, Shishido F. Incidence of leukoencephalopathy after whole-brain radiation therapy for brain metastases. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2013 Apr 1:85(5):1212-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.09.025. Epub 2012 Oct 23 [PubMed PMID: 23102839]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[115]

Conill C,Berenguer J,Vargas M,López-Soriano A,Valduvieco I,Marruecos J,Vilella R, Incidence of radiation-induced leukoencephalopathy after whole brain radiotherapy in patients with brain metastases. Clinical [PubMed PMID: 17921107]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[116]

Safaee M, Burke J, McDermott MW. Techniques for the Application of Stereotactic Head Frames Based on a 25-Year Experience. Cureus. 2016 Mar 25:8(3):e543. doi: 10.7759/cureus.543. Epub 2016 Mar 25 [PubMed PMID: 27158573]

[117]

Tanguturi SK, Alexander BM. Neurologic Complications of Radiation Therapy. Neurologic clinics. 2018 Aug:36(3):599-625. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2018.04.012. Epub 2018 Jun 15 [PubMed PMID: 30072073]

[118]

Weiss SE, Kelly PJ. Neurocognitive function after WBRT plus SRS or SRS alone. The Lancet. Oncology. 2010 Mar:11(3):220-1. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70387-0. Epub [PubMed PMID: 20202605]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[119]

Gaspar L,Scott C,Rotman M,Asbell S,Phillips T,Wasserman T,McKenna WG,Byhardt R, Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) brain metastases trials. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 1997 Mar 1; [PubMed PMID: 9128946]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence

[120]

Kaul D, Angelidis A, Budach V, Ghadjar P, Kufeld M, Badakhshi H. Prognostic indices in stereotactic radiotherapy of brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiation oncology (London, England). 2015 Nov 26:10():244. doi: 10.1186/s13014-015-0550-1. Epub 2015 Nov 26 [PubMed PMID: 26611493]

[121]

Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, Barani IJ, Barboriak DP, Baumert BG, Bendszus M, Brown PD, Camidge DR, Chang SM, Dancey J, de Vries EG, Gaspar LE, Harris GJ, Hodi FS, Kalkanis SN, Linskey ME, Macdonald DR, Margolin K, Mehta MP, Schiff D, Soffietti R, Suh JH, van den Bent MJ, Vogelbaum MA, Wen PY, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) group. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. The Lancet. Oncology. 2015 Jun:16(6):e270-8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70057-4. Epub 2015 May 27 [PubMed PMID: 26065612]

[122]

Zhu H, Jones CK, van Zijl PC, Barker PB, Zhou J. Fast 3D chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging of the human brain. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2010 Sep:64(3):638-44. doi: 10.1002/mrm.22546. Epub [PubMed PMID: 20632402]

[123]

Mehrabian H,Detsky J,Soliman H,Sahgal A,Stanisz GJ, Advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques in Management of Brain Metastases. Frontiers in oncology. 2019; [PubMed PMID: 31214496]

[124]

Pope WB. Brain metastases: neuroimaging. Handbook of clinical neurology. 2018:149():89-112. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811161-1.00007-4. Epub [PubMed PMID: 29307364]