INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) represents an effective treatment for pediatric arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). Biologic effective dose (BED) is recognized as a predictive variable for outcomes in the adult population, but its role has never been studied in pediatric outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective data for = 18 years old patients treated with single-session SRS for AVM was collected from 1989 – 2019. BED calculations were performed using an a/b ratio of 2.47. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate obliteration, new hemorrhage, and radiation-induced changes (RIC). Cox-regression analysis was used for obliteration prediction using two models (margin dose versus BED). RESULTS: One-hundred-ninety-seven patients [median age = 13.1 years, Interquartile range (IQR) = 5.2] were included; 72.6% presented initially with spontaneous hemorrhage. A median margin dose of 22 Gy (IQ = 4.0) with a median BED of 183.2Gy (IQR = 70.54) was used to treat AVMs with a median volume of 2.8 cm3 (IQR = 2.9). Following SRS, obliteration was confirmed in 115 patients (58.4%) using MRI and angiography at a median follow-up of 2.85 years (IQR = 2.26). The cumulative obliteration probability was 43.6% (95% CI = 36.1-50.3), 60.5% (95% CI+=2.2-67.4), 66.0% (95% CI= 56.0-73.7) at 3, 5 and 10 years respectively. In multivariate analysis, a BED >180 Gy [HR = 2.11, 95% CI=1.30-3.40, p = 0.002] in model 1, and a margin dose >20 Gy [HR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.15-3.13, p = 0.019] in model 2, were associated with obliteration. An AVM nidus volume >4 cm 3 was associated with lower obliteration rates in both models. The probability of symptomatic RIC at 10 years was 8.6% (95% CI = 3.5-13.4). Neither BED nor margin dose were associated with RIC occurrence, with the only predictive factor being deep AVM location [HR = 3, 95% CI = 1-9.1, p = 0.048]. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms BED as a predictor for pediatric AVM obliteration. Optimization of BED in pediatric AVM SRS planning may improve cumulative obliteration rates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grogan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: