Faculty Bibliography

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) compared with other treatment modalities? Target population These recommendations apply to adults with newly diagnosed solid brain metastases amenable to SRS; lesions amenable to SRS are typically defined as measuring less than 3 cm in maximum diameter and producing minimal (less than 1 cm of midline shift) mass effect. Recommendations SRS plus WBRT vs. WBRT alone Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT leads to significantly longer patient survival compared with WBRT alone for patients with single metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or = 70.Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior in terms of local tumor control and maintaining functional status when compared to WBRT alone for patients with 1-4 metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or =70.Level 2 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT may lead to significantly longer patient survival than WBRT alone for patients with 2-3 metastatic brain tumors.Level 3 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS<70 [corrected].Level 4 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS < 70. SRS plus WBRT vs. SRS alone Level 2 Single-dose SRS alone may provide an equivalent survival advantage for patients with brain metastases compared with WBRT + single-dose SRS. There is conflicting class I and II evidence regarding the risk of both local and distant recurrence when SRS is used in isolation, and class I evidence demonstrates a lower risk of distant recurrence with WBRT; thus, regular careful surveillance is warranted for patients treated with SRS alone in order to provide early identification of local and distant recurrences so that salvage therapy can be initiated at the soonest possible time. Surgical Resection plus WBRT vs. SRS +/- WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, vs. SRS plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3: Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. SRS alone vs. WBRT alone Level 3 While both single-dose SRS and WBRT are effective for treating patients with brain metastases, single-dose SRS alone appears to be superior to WBRT alone for patients with up to three metastatic brain tumors in terms of patient survival advantage.

QUESTION: What evidence is available regarding the use of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases? TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with recurrent/progressive brain metastases who have previously been treated with WBRT, surgical resection and/or radiosurgery. Recurrent/progressive brain metastases are defined as metastases that recur/progress anywhere in the brain (original and/or non-original sites) after initial therapy. RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 Since there is insufficient evidence to make definitive treatment recommendations in patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases, treatment should be individualized based on a patient's functional status, extent of disease, volume/number of metastases, recurrence or progression at original versus non-original site, previous treatment and type of primary cancer, and enrollment in clinical trials is encouraged. In this context, the following can be recommended depending on a patient's specific condition: no further treatment (supportive care), re-irradiation (either WBRT and/or SRS), surgical excision or, to a lesser extent, chemotherapy. Question If WBRT is used in the setting of recurrent/progressive brain metastases, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes? No studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria for this question.

QUESTION: Do steroids improve neurologic symptoms in patients with metastatic brain tumors compared to no treatment? If steroids are given, what dose should be used? Comparisons include: (1) steroid therapy versus none. (2) comparison of different doses of steroid therapy. TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults diagnosed with brain metastases. RECOMMENDATIONS: Steroid therapy versus no steroid therapy Asymptomatic brain metastases patients without mass effect Insufficient evidence exists to make a treatment recommendation for this clinical scenario. Brain metastases patients with mild symptoms related to mass effect Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. It is recommended for patients who are symptomatic from metastatic disease to the brain that a starting dose of 4-8 mg/day of dexamethasone be considered. Brain metastases patients with moderate to severe symptoms related to mass effect Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. If patients exhibit severe symptoms consistent with increased intracranial pressure, it is recommended that higher doses such as 16 mg/day or more be considered. Choice of Steroid Level 3 If corticosteroids are given, dexamethasone is the best drug choice given the available evidence. Duration of Corticosteroid Administration Level 3 Corticosteroids, if given, should be tapered slowly over a 2 week time period, or longer in symptomatic patients, based upon an individualized treatment regimen and a full understanding of the long-term sequelae of corticosteroid therapy. Given the very limited number of studies (two) which met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review, these are the only recommendations that can be offered based on this methodology. Please see "Discussion" and "Summary" section for additional details.

QUESTION: Do prophylactic anticonvulsants decrease the risk of seizure in patients with metastatic brain tumors compared with no treatment? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with solid brain metastases who have not experienced a seizure due to their metastatic brain disease. RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 For adults with brain metastases who have not experienced a seizure due to their metastatic brain disease, routine prophylactic use of anticonvulsants is not recommended. Only a single underpowered randomized controlled trial (RCT), which did not detect a difference in seizure occurrence, provides evidence for decision-making purposes.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with intracranial aneurysms, both ruptured and unruptured, are frequently eligible for both open surgery ("clipping") and endovascular repair ("coiling"). Although results of randomized trials have informed this decision, the actual choice of clipping or coiling for individual patients remains complex. At the 2007 Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) Annual Meeting, a novel active learning process called Integrated Medical Learning (IML) was applied to education about this critical treatment choice. METHODS: CNS members received an electronically distributed premeeting survey and educational materials about the clipping versus coiling decision and related topics. At the Annual Meeting, participants used handheld devices to choose clipping or coiling for treatment of individual aneurysms, both before and after expert opinion presentations. After the meeting, members who had answered premeeting surveys received a follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: In the premeeting poll, respondents with self-described specialties of "vascular," Cerebrovascular Section members, surgeons with active cerebrovascular practices, and surgeons in practice for less than 20 years had higher levels of baseline knowledge of cerebrovascular literature (P < .03). Surgeons' clinical volumes of clipping and coiling strongly influenced their vote for clipping or coiling for a hypothetical patient (P < .01). At the meeting, in 6 of 8 cases of ruptured aneurysms the audience was split 75%:25% or closer to "clinical equipoise" (50:50 split). Surgeons with vascular specialty, academic surgeons, and residents were more likely to recommend clipping for individual cases (P < .05). After experts' presentations, in 6 of 8 cases the audience opinion changed significantly. Vascular specialists and younger surgeons were less likely to change their opinion (P < .03). The 2 cases with no shift in opinion were the most-clippable and most-coilable cases. Postmeeting surveys showed evidence of retained knowledge from the meeting, and respondents thought IML had been helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Using IML, we were able to study baseline knowledge and practice patterns for an important cerebrovascular treatment decision. Evidence suggested that expert presentations were effective in changing audience opinion, at least in cases where preexisting opinion was close to clinical equipoise.