Retrospective analysis compares outcomes of pre-operative stereotactic radiosurgery vs fractionated radiotherapy for brain metastases, suggesting both are effective treatment options.
Purpose The treatment standard for patients with large or symptomatic brain metastases and limited intracranial disease is surgical resection followed by post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Pre-operative (pre-op) SRS may lead to a reduced incidence of radiation necrosis (RN), local failure (LF), and nodular meningeal disease (nMD). Fractionated treatments may reduce the incidence of LF and nMD. We hypothesize that pre-operative fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy will reduce the incidence rate of RN, LD, and nMD compared to patients receiving pre-operative SRS. Methods Patients who had surgical resection and pre-operative radiation to at least one brain metastasis at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes were evaluated on a per-lesion basis. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint defined by 1) LF, 2) nMD, and/or 3) Grade 2 or higher (symptomatic) RN. Results 299 resected brain metastases from 260 patients were eligible for analysis. 235 metastases received FSRT and 64 received SRS. 38 patients had multiple metastases resected pre-operatively. Overall, 4 (6.3%) SRS and 6 (2.6%) FSRT metastases experienced LF. 4 (6.2%) SRS and 21 (9.1%) FSRT metastases experienced Grade 2 or higher RN. 3 (4.7%) SRS and 11 (4.7%) FSRT metastases were diagnosed with leptomeningeal disease. Additionally, 3 (4.6%) and 0 (0%) of SRS, and 8 (3.4%) and 4 (1.7%) of FSRT patients experienced classical or nodular meningeal disease, respectively. 11% and 12% of SRS and FSRT metastases experienced the composite endpoint. Conclusions In our study, pre-operative SRS and FSRT both appear to be safe and effective options to treat resectable brain metastases. It is important to prospectively compare pre-op SRS and FSRT in matched cohorts to assess any differences in treatment efficacy and toxicity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Perlow et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: