A large pooled analysis of liver oligometastases, classified accordingly to the ESTRO/EORTC recommendations, treated by stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) and Radiosurgery (SRS) was carried out. The clinical and dosimetric data of patients who underwent SBRT/SRS for liver metastases were analysed in terms of efficacy and toxicity profile. In particular, the Local Control (LC), the Distant Metastases Free Survival (DMFS), the Disease-Free Survival (DFS), the Overall Survival (OS), and the Next Systemic Therapy Free Survival (NEST-FS) rates were analysed. 113 patients (M/F: 49/64), accounting for a total of 150 hepatic lesions (March 2006-February 2023) in two Italian radiotherapy Institutions were evaluated. Median age was 67 years old (36-92) and 48 (42.5%) patients had at least one comorbidity. The majority of the lesions were induced (30.7%) or repeated oligoprogressive (12.7%) metastases. 98 lesions were treated with more than one daily fraction (mainly 50 Gy in 5 fractions), while 52 were radiosurgery treatments (mainly 32 Gy). The treatment response at 3-4 months was evaluable in 147 lesions: complete response was 32.0%, partial response 17.0%, and stable disease 32.0%. Actuarial LC, DMFS, DFS, OS, and NEST-FS at 1 year were 75.8%, 37.7%, 34.9%, 78.7%, and 59.4% respectively; while actuarial LC, DMFS, DFS, OS, and NEST-FS at 2 years were 52.1%, 24.9%, 21.9%, 51.3%, and 36.8%, respectively. The achievement of complete response, synchronous oligometastases, and no treatment interruptions correlated with a more favorable outcomes. As per the toxicity profile, we registered only two acute and one late toxicity cases higher than grade 2. Stereotactic treatment for liver metastases seems to be a safe and promising option in terms of local control. The best results in term of outcomes have been obtained in patients with complete response, synchronous oligometastases, favorable histology, and no treatment interruptions.

Accurate Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) simulation is fundamental for high-precision stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, collectively referred to as stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), to deliver doses of high biological effectiveness to well-defined cranial targets. Multiple MRI hardware related factors as well as scanner configuration and sequence protocol parameters can affect the imaging accuracy and need to be optimized for the special purpose of radiotherapy treatment planning. MRI simulation for SRT is possible for different organizational environments including patient referral for imaging as well as dedicated MRI simulation in the radiotherapy department but require radiotherapy-optimized MRI protocols and defined quality standards to ensure geometrically accurate images that form an impeccable foundation for treatment planning. For this guideline, an interdisciplinary panel including experts from the working group for radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO), the working group for physics and technology in stereotactic radiotherapy of the German Society for Medical Physics (DGMP), the German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC), the German Society of Neuroradiology (DGNR) and the German Chapter of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (DS-ISMRM) have defined minimum MRI quality requirements as well as advanced MRI simulation options for cranial SRT.

UNASSIGNED: Cavernous malformations (CM) of the central nervous system constitute rare vascular lesions. They are usually asymptomatic, which has allowed their management to become quite debatable. Even when they become symptomatic their optimal mode and timing of treatment remains controversial.
UNASSIGNED: A consensus may navigate neurosurgeons through the decision-making process of selecting the optimal treatment for asymptomatic and symptomatic CMs.
UNASSIGNED: A 17-item questionnaire was developed to address controversial issues in relation to aspects of the treatment, surgical planning, optimal surgical strategy for specific age groups, the role of stereotactic radiosurgery, as well as a follow-up pattern. Consequently, a three-stage Delphi process was ran through 19 invited experts with the goal of reaching a consensus. The agreement rate for reaching a consensus was set at 70%.
UNASSIGNED: A consensus for surgical intervention was reached on the importance of the patient\'s age, symptomatology, and hemorrhagic recurrence; and the CM\'s location and size. The employment of advanced MRI techniques is considered of value for surgical planning. Observation for asymptomatic eloquent or deep-seated CMs represents the commonest practice among our panel. Surgical resection is considered when a deep-seated CM becomes symptomatic or after a second bleeding episode. Asymptomatic, image-proven hemorrhages constituted no indication for surgical resection for our panelists. Consensus was also reached on not resecting any developmental venous anomalies, and on resecting the associated hemosiderin rim only in epilepsy cases.
UNASSIGNED: Our Delphi consensus provides an expert common practice for specific controversial issues of CM patient management.

暂无摘要。

No guidelines have been published regarding stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the management of Spetzler-Martin grade I and II arteriovenous malformations (AVMs).
To establish SRS practice guidelines for grade I-II AVMs on the basis of a systematic literature review.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant search of Medline, Embase, and Scopus, 1986-2018, for publications reporting post-SRS outcomes in ≥10 grade I-II AVMs with a follow-up of ≥24 mo. Primary endpoints were obliteration and hemorrhage; secondary outcomes included Spetzler-Martin parameters, dosimetric variables, and \"excellent\" outcomes (defined as total obliteration without new post-SRS deficit).
Of 447 abstracts screened, 8 were included (n = 1, level 2 evidence; n = 7, level 4 evidence), representing 1102 AVMs, of which 836 (76%) were grade II. Obliteration was achieved in 884 (80%) at a median of 37 mo; 66 hemorrhages (6%) occurred during a median follow-up of 68 mo. Total obliteration without hemorrhage was achieved in 78%. Of 836 grade II AVMs, Spetzler-Martin parameters were reported in 680: 377 were eloquent brain and 178 had deep venous drainage, totaling 555/680 (82%) high-risk SRS-treated grade II AVMs.
The literature regarding SRS for grade I-II AVM is low quality, limiting interpretation. Cautiously, we observed that SRS appears to be a safe, effective treatment for grade I-II AVM and may be considered a front-line treatment, particularly for lesions in deep or eloquent locations. Preceding publications may be influenced by selection bias, with favorable AVMs undergoing resection, whereas those at increased risk of complications and nonobliteration are disproportionately referred for SRS.

Significant heterogeneity exists in target volumes for postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases. A set of contouring guidelines was recently published, and we investigated the impact of deviations.
Patients (n = 41) undergoing single-fraction Gamma Knife SRS following surgical resection of brain metastases from 2011 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. SRS included the entire contrast-enhancing cavity with heterogeneity in inclusion of the surgical tract and no routine margin along the dura or clinical target volume margin. Follow-up MR imaging was fused with SRS plans to assess patterns of failure.
The median follow-up was 11.1 months with a median prescription of 18 Gy. There were 5 local failures: infield (n = 3, 60%), surgical tract (n = 1, 20%), and marginal > 5 mm from the resection cavity (n = 1, 20%). No marginal failures < 5 mm or dural margin failures were noted. For deep lesions (n = 13), 62% (n = 8) had the entire tract covered. The only tract recurrence was in a deep lesion without coverage of the surgical tract (n = 1/5).
In this small preliminary experience, despite no routine inclusion of the dural tract or bone flap, no failures were noted in these locations. Omission of the surgical tract in deep lesions may increase failure rates.

These recommendations apply to adult patients with new or recurrent solitary or multiple brain metastases from solid tumors as detailed in each section.
Should patients with newly diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) compared with other treatment modalities?
Level 3: SRS is recommended as an alternative to surgical resection in solitary metastases when surgical resection is likely to induce new neurological deficits, and tumor volume and location are not likely to be associated with radiation-induced injury to surrounding structures. Level 3: SRS should be considered as a valid adjunctive therapy to supportive palliative care for some patients with brain metastases when it might be reasonably expected to relieve focal symptoms and improve functional quality of life in the short term if this is consistent with the overall goals of the patient.
What is the role of SRS after open surgical resection of brain metastasis?
Level 3: After open surgical resection of a solitary brain metastasis, SRS should be used to decrease local recurrence rates.
What is the role of SRS alone in the management of patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases?
Level 3: For patients with solitary brain metastasis, SRS should be given to decrease the risk of local progression. Level 3: For patients with 2 to 4 brain metastases, SRS is recommended for local tumor control, instead of whole brain radiotherapy, when their cumulative volume is < 7 mL.
What is the role of SRS alone in the management of patients with more than 4 brain metastases?
Level 3: The use of stereotactic radiosurgery alone is recommended to improve median overall survival for patients with more than 4 metastases having a cumulative volume < 7 mL. The full guideline can be found at: https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-treatment-adults-metastatic-brain-tumors/chapter_4.

Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for the treatment of their brain metastases?
This recommendation applies to adult patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases amenable to both chemotherapy and radiation treatment.
Level 1: Routine use of chemotherapy following WBRT for brain metastases is not recommended. Level 3: Routine use of WBRT plus temozolomide is recommended as a treatment for patients with triple negative breast cancer.
Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the treatment of their brain metastases?
Level 1: Routine use of chemotherapy following SRS is not recommended. Level 2: SRS is recommended in combination with chemotherapy to improve overall survival and progression free survival in lung adenocarcinoma patients.
Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy alone?
Level 1: Routine use of cytotoxic chemotherapy alone for brain metastases is not recommended as it has not been shown to increase overall survival.Please see the full-text version of this guideline (https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-treatment-adults-metastatic-brain-tumors/chapter_5) for the target population of each recommendation.

The Congress of Neurological Surgeons systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice parameter guidelines for the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors was first published in 2010. Because of the time elapsed since that publication, an update of this set of guidelines based on literature published since is now indicated.
To establish the best evidence-based management of metastatic brain tumors over all commonly used diagnostic and treatment modalities in regularly encountered clinical situations.
Literature searches regarding management of metastatic brain tumors with whole brain radiation therapy, surgery, stereotactic radiosurgery, chemotherapy, prophylactic anticonvulsants, steroids, instances of multiple brain metastases, and emerging and investigational therapies were carried out to answer questions designed by consensus of a multidisciplinary writing group.
Recommendations were created and their strength linked to the quality of the literature data available thus creating an evidence-based guideline. Importantly, shortcomings and biases to the literature data are brought out so as to provide guidance for future investigation and improvements in the management of patients with metastatic brain tumors.
This series of guidelines was constructed to assess the most current and clinically relevant evidence for management of metastatic brain tumors. They set a benchmark regarding the current evidence base for this management while also highlighting important key areas for future basic and clinical research, particularly on those topics for which no recommendations could be formulated.The full guideline can be found at: https://www.cns.org/guidelines-treatment-adults-metastatic-brain-tumors/chapter_1.

Breast cancer is a common cause of brain metastases, with metastases occurring in at least 10-16% of patients. Longer survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer and the use of better imaging techniques are associated with an increased incidence of brain metastases. Current therapies include surgery, whole-brain radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, chemotherapy and targeted therapies. However, the timing and appropriate use of these therapies is controversial and careful patient selection by using available prognostic tools is extremely important. Expert oncologist discussed on the mode of treatment to extend the OS and improve the quality of life ofHER2-positivebreast cancer patients with Solitary brain metastases. This expert group used data from published literature, practical experience and opinion of a large group of academic oncologists to arrive at this practical consensus recommendations for the benefit of community oncologists.