Stereotactic radiosurgery with neoadjuvant embolization of larger arteriovenous malformations: an institutional experience

Volume-staged versus dose-staged stereotactic radiosurgery, with or without embolization, in the treatment of large brain arteriovenous malformations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

While safe and effective modalities exist to treat small arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), large (>10 cm3) AVMs remain difficult to cure via surgical or endovascular means. Staged stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), either volume-staged (VS) or dose-staged (DS), has been proposed for large AVMs. The relative efficacy of these two strategies, with or without endovascular embolization, is unclear. Accordingly, the goal of this study is to review existing literature on VS-SRS and DS-SRS for large brain AVMs to compare obliteration rates and complications, and determine the utility of neoadjuvant embolization.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane registry were searched for studies with at least five adult patients and an AVM volume of ≥10 cm3 prior to treatment. Meta-analyses of proportions were conducted and compared using a Wald-type test and the impact of prior embolization was investigated using weighted linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (VS-SRS n = 235, DS-SRS n = 157) fit inclusion criteria, all of which were retrospective and none of which directly compared both treatment strategies. The average rate of complete AVM obliteration was significantly higher with VS-SRS (46.6 %; 39.7 % - 53.6 %) than DS-SRS (17.8 %; 7.0 % - 38.2 %, p = 0.027). Complication rates were comparable between VS-SRS (18.0 %; 9.2 % - 32.1 %) and DS-SRS (23.6 %; 12.2 % - 40.8 %, p = 0.544). Regression analysis demonstrated no significant relationship between prior embolization and complete obliteration for either VS-SRS (r = -0.36, p = 0.34) or DS-SRS (r = 0.58, p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

VS-SRS, without neoadjuvant embolization, appears to be the optimal approach when treating large AVMs with radiosurgery. Further prospective studies are warranted.

Frameless Angiography-Based Gamma Knife Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations: A Proof-of-Concept Study

BACKGROUND

Traditional Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) requires head immobilization using a stereotactic frame.

OBJECTIVE

We describe our protocol of frameless GKRS using DSA while maintaining high spatial resolution for precision.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of patients with unruptured AVMs who underwent frameless GKRS. Magnetic resonance imaging and 3-dimensional DSA were obtained without a stereotactic frame for all patients. The imaging studies were merged for contouring of the AVM nidus. During GKRS treatment, patients were immobilized using an individually molded thermoplastic mask.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were included in the analysis. The median age is 45.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 28.0-55.0). The median nidus size is 3.0 cm (IQR: 2.0-3.4). One patient had a Spetzler-Martin grade I, 11 had a grade II, 11 had a grade III, 6 had a grade IV, and 2 had a grade V AVM. Eleven patients underwent preradiosurgical embolization, 3 patients had previous microsurgical resection and/or embolization, and 1 patient had prior radiosurgery. The median administered dose was 20 Gy (IQR: 18.0-21.0). All patients completed their treatment with the planned radiation dose without complications.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study that integrates DSA in the treatment planning of brain AVMs using GKRS without utilizing a stereotactic head frame. Frameless GKRS provides numerous advantages over frame-based techniques including improved patient experience and the capability of fractionation and thus expanding the eligibility of more AVMs for radiosurgery, while maintaining high spatial resolution of the AVM using angiography data.

Upfront and Repeated Gamma-Knife Radiosurgery for Small (≤5 mL) Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformation: A Cohort of 249 Consecutive Patients

OBJECTIVE

According to A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations (ARUBA), conservative treatment seems to be superior to any intervention for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). This study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of upfront and repeated Gamma-Knife Radiosurgery (GKRS) in patients harboring small AVMs fulfilling the inclusion criteria of ARUBA.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate outcomes of unruptured naive brain AVM with a volume ⩽ 5 mL eligible to ARUBA treated by GKRS with at least 3 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

From 1992 to 2014, 249 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this study. The median age was 36 years (range: 18-78 years). The median treated volume of the nidus was 1.3 mL (range: 0.4-5 mL) and 63% of the AVM were in eloquent areas. Radiosurgery-based AVM score was 1-1.8 (76%), the Spetzler-Martin grade was II-III (73%), and the Virginia Radiosurgery AVM scale was ≤1 point (75%). The overall AVM obliteration rate was 77.1% after up to 3 GKRS sessions. The median dose at the margin was 24 Gy (15-25 Gy) and the median follow-up was 45 months (range: 36-205 months). Eight patients (3.2%) experienced hemorrhage after GKRS, corresponding to a post-GKRS hemorrhage annual rate of 1.03%. Permanent symptomatic radio-induced changes rate was 2% (4 increased seizures, 1 neurologic deficit).

CONCLUSIONS

The very low toxicity rate and the high occlusion rate suggest in favor of upfront and repeated GKRS for unruptured small AVMs (⩽5 mL).

Stereotactic Radiosurgery With vs. Without Prior Embolization for Brain Arteriovenous Malformations: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Objective: Whether partial embolization could facilitate the post-stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) obliteration for brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) remains controversial. We performed this study to compare the outcomes of SRS with and without prior embolization for bAVMs.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the Beijing Tiantan AVMs prospective registration research database from September 2011 to October 2014. Patients were categorized into two groups, combined upfront embolization and SRS (Em+SRS group) and SRS alone (SRS group), and we performed a propensity score matching analysis based on pre-embolization baseline characteristics; the matched groups each comprised 76 patients.

Results: The obliteration rate was similar between SRS and Em+SRS (44.7 vs. 31.6%; OR, 1.754; 95% CI, 0.905–3.401; p = 0.096). However, the SRS group was superior to the Em+SRS group in terms of cumulative obliteration rate at a follow-up of 5 years (HR,1.778; 95% CI, 1.017–3.110; p = 0.033). The secondary outcomes, including functional state, post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, and edema or cyst formation were similar between the matched cohorts. In the ruptured subgroup, the SRS group could achieve higher obliteration rate than Em+SRS group (56.5 vs. 31.9%; OR, 2.773; 95% CI, 1.190–6.464; p = 0.018). The cumulative obliteration rate at 5 years was also higher in the SRS group (64.5 vs. 41.3%; HR, 2.012; 95% CI, 1.037–3.903; p = 0.038), and the secondary outcomes were also similar between the matched cohorts.

Conclusion: Although there was no significant difference in the overall obliteration rate between the two strategies, this study suggested that pre-SRS embolization may have a negative effect on post-SRS obliteration. Furthermore, the obliteration rates of the SRS only strategy was significantly higher than that of the Em+SRS strategy in the ruptured cohort, while no such phenomenon was found in the unruptured cohort.

Chinese Cerebrovascular Neurosurgery Society and Chinese Interventional & Hybrid Operation Society, of Chinese Stroke Association Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Brain Arteriovenous Malformations in Eloquent Areas

Aim: The aim of this guideline is to present current and comprehensive recommendations for the management of brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) located in eloquent areas. Methods: An extended literature search on MEDLINE was performed between Jan 1970 and May 2020. Eloquence-related literature was further screened and interpreted in different subcategories of this guideline. The writing group discussed narrative text and recommendations through group meetings and online video conferences. Recommendations followed the Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence proposed by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Prerelease review of the draft guideline was performed by four expert peer reviewers and by the members of Chinese Stroke Association. Results: In total, 809 out of 2,493 publications were identified to be related to eloquent structure or neurological functions of bAVMs. Three-hundred and forty-one publications were comprehensively interpreted and cited by this guideline. Evidence-based guidelines were presented for the clinical evaluation and treatment of bAVMs with eloquence involved. Topics focused on neuroanatomy of activated eloquent structure, functional neuroimaging, neurological assessment, indication, and recommendations of different therapeutic managements. Fifty-nine recommendations were summarized, including 20 in Class I, 30 in Class IIa, 9 in Class IIb, and 2 in Class III. Conclusions: The management of eloquent bAVMs remains challenging. With the evolutionary understanding of eloquent areas, the guideline highlights the assessment of eloquent bAVMs, and a strategy for decision-making in the management of eloquent bAVMs.

Volume-Staged Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Large Brain Arteriovenous Malformation

OBJECTIVE

Large brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) pose a management dilemma because of the limited success of any single treatment modality by itself. Surgery alone is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Similarly, embolization alone has limited efficacy. Volume-staged Gamma Knife radiosurgery (VSGR) has been developed for the treatment of large AVMs to increase the efficacy and improve safety of treatment of these lesions. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of VSGR technique for the treatment of large brain AVMs.

METHODS

The study included patients treated by VSGR between May 2009 and July 2015. All patients had large AVMs (>10 mL). There were 29 patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients completed radiographic follow-up, with 15 obliteration cases (62.5%). A total of 56 sessions were performed. The mean AVM volume was 16 mL (range, 10.1-29.3 mL). The mean prescription dose was 18 Gy (range, 14-22 Gy). The mean follow-up duration was 43 months (range, 21-73 months). One patient died during follow-up of an unrelated cause. Two patients had hemorrhage during follow-up. Symptomatic edema developed in 5 patients (17%). The factors affecting obliteration were smaller total volume, higher dose/stage, nondeep location, compact AVM, AVM score <3, >18 Gy dose, and <15 mL total volume. The factors affecting symptomatic edema were smaller total volume and shorter time between first and last sessions (P = 0.012). T2 image changes were affected by Spetzler-Martin grade ≥3 (P = 0.013) and AVM score ≥3 (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

VSGR provides an effective and safe treatment option for large brain AVMs. Smaller AVM volume is associated with higher obliteration rate.

Volume-staged versus dose-staged stereotactic radiosurgery outcomes for large brain arteriovenous malformations: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE Several recent studies have improved our understanding of the outcomes of volume-staged (VS) and dose-staged (DS) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the treatment of large (volume > 10 cm3) brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). In light of these recent additions to the literature, the aim of this systematic review is to provide an updated comparison of VS-SRS and DS-SRS for large AVMs. METHODS A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed to identify cohorts of 5 or more patients with large AVMs who had been treated with VS-SRS or DS-SRS. Baseline data and post-SRS outcomes were extracted for analysis. RESULTS A total of 11 VS-SRS and 10 DS-SRS studies comprising 299 and 219 eligible patients, respectively, were included for analysis. The mean obliteration rates for VS-SRS and DS-SRS were 41.2% (95% CI 31.4%-50.9%) and 32.3% (95% CI 15.9%-48.8%), respectively. Based on pooled individual patient data, the outcomes for patients treated with VS-SRS were obliteration in 40.3% (110/273), symptomatic radiation-induced changes (RICs) in 13.7% (44/322), post-SRS hemorrhage in 19.5% (50/256), and death in 7.4% (24/323); whereas the outcomes for patients treated with DS-SRS were obliteration in 32.7% (72/220), symptomatic RICs in 12.2% (31/254), post-SRS hemorrhage in 10.6% (30/282), and death in 4.6% (13/281). CONCLUSIONS Volume-staged SRS appears to afford higher obliteration rates than those achieved with DS-SRS, although with a less favorable complication profile. Therefore, VS-SRS or DS-SRS may be a reasonable treatment approach for large AVMs, either as stand-alone therapy or as a component of a multimodality management strategy.

Highlights on Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformation Treatment Using Combined Embolization and Stereotactic Radiosurgery: Why Outcomes are Controversial?

Cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are abnormal tangling between brain arteries and veins causing an arteriovenous shunt called nidus with an intervening network of vessels from the region of formation and spans through the brain. AVM effect is debilitating to the affected individual due to associated persistent intracerebral hemorrhage, resulting in significant occurrences of seizures and neurological damage. Recent innovative treatments involve a combination of embolization (Embo) procedures followed by stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), designed to optimize less-invasive practice for the obliteration of the AVMs. Three groups of investigators reported different outcomes based on obliteration rates and adverse events, making the effectiveness of options for therapy, controversial. We have taken the case-oriented-approach to highlight on varying outcomes from various studies and provide insights as to why findings from different operation settings could be so conflicting. We chose 18 articles for systematic analysis based on initial electronic database selection of 40 key papers already identified for inclusion, followed by independent blinding assessment by two co-authors. Our evaluation was based first on our specific inclusion criteria, examining method quality, obliteration rates, serious adverse events (SAEs) and mortality rates. Second, we made a comparison between SRS or embo alone treatments versus combined embo/SRS procedures, relative to AVM sizes, following Spetzler-Martin (SM) method. Third, we considered publications which had concrete statistics with well-defined P-values and clarified outcomes for accurate evaluation. We found that patients with small to medium-sized AVM were susceptible to either embo alone or SRS alone treatments, yielding obliteration rates from 71%-100%. Except for one report, giant sizes AVMs were not amenable to these single treatments, subjecting patients to embo/SRS procedures, which yielded mixed results: One group reported 52%-65% obliteration rates, compared to 23%-28% embo alone treatment. A second group contradicted this apparent beneficial outcome, obtaining obliteration rates of 53% with combined treatment compared to 71% with SRS alone, four-year postoperative. A third group reported there was no difference between single and combined treatments and obtained complete obliteration of 70%-82%, ranging from three-five-years postoperative follow-up. In all the cases analyzed, obliteration rates improved with time. SAEs, such as persistent hemorrhage and permanent neurologic deficits (P-NDs), as well as mortality, were minimal during intraoperative and postoperative follow-ups. The problem of conflicting outcomes in combined treatments of AVM by EMBO/SRS exists. Previous investigators, however, have overlooked to address this issue satisfactorily. Our analysis found that the reported inconsistencies in AVM treatment outcomes are attributable to key factors making therapy unpredictable, which includes: the size of the AVM, nidus localization and accessibility of either Embo or radiation dose applied, certain Embo materials lowering obliteration rates by masking radioactive effect on the nidus during SRS and follow-up timing for obtaining obliteration rates determine the extent of obliteration. We have indicated critical factors which require consideration when planning strategies for treatment of AVM patients and have made suggestions of how to overcome such hurdles.

Current surgical results with low-grade brain arteriovenous malformations

OBJECT

Resection is an appealing therapy for brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) because of its high cure rate, low complication rate, and immediacy, and has become the first-line therapy for many AVMs. To clarify safety, efficacy, and outcomes associated with AVM resection in the aftermath of A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain AVMs (ARUBA), the authors reviewed their experience with low-grade AVMs-the most favorable AVMs for surgery and the ones most likely to have been selected for treatment outside of ARUBA's randomization process.

METHODS

A prospective AVM registry was searched to identify patients with Spetzler-Martin Grade I and II AVMs treated using resection during a 16-year period.

RESULTS

Of the 232 surgical patients included, 120 (52%) presented with hemorrhage, 33% had Spetzler-Martin Grade I, and 67% had Grade II AVMs. Overall, 99 patients (43%) underwent preoperative embolization, with unruptured AVMs embolized more often than ruptured AVMs. AVM resection was accomplished in all patients and confirmed angiographically in 218 patients (94%). There were no deaths among patients with unruptured AVMs. Good outcomes (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0-1) were found in 78% of patients, with 97% improved or unchanged from their preoperative mRS scores. Patients with unruptured AVMs had better functional outcomes (91% good outcome vs 65% in the ruptured group, p = 0.0008), while relative outcomes were equivalent (98% improved/unchanged in patients with ruptured AVMs vs 96% in patients with unruptured AVMs).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery should be regarded as the "gold standard" therapy for the majority of low-grade AVMs, utilizing conservative embolization as a preoperative adjunct. High surgical cure rates and excellent functional outcomes in patients with both ruptured and unruptured AVMs support a dominant surgical posture for low-grade AVMS, with radiosurgery reserved for risky AVMs in deep, inaccessible, and highly eloquent locations. Despite the technological advances in endovascular and radiosurgical therapy, surgery still offers the best cure rate, lowest risk profile, and greatest protection against hemorrhage for low-grade AVMs. ARUBA results are influenced by a low randomization rate, bias toward nonsurgical therapies, a shortage of surgical expertise, a lower rate of complete AVM obliteration, a higher rate of delayed hemorrhage, and short study duration. Another randomized trial is needed to reestablish the role of surgery in unruptured AVM management.

Staged-volume radiosurgery for large arteriovenous malformations: a review

Stereotactic radiosurgery is an effective management strategy for properly selected patients with arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). However, the risk of postradiosurgical radiation-related injury is higher in patients with large AVMs. Multistaged volumetric management of large AVMs was undertaken to limit the radiation exposure to the surrounding normal brain. This strategy offers a promising method for obtaining high AVM obliteration rates with minimal normal tissue damage. The use of embolization as an adjunctive method in the treatment of large AVMs remains controversial. Unfortunately, staged-volume radiosurgery (SVR) has a number of potential pitfalls that affect the outcome. The aim of this article is to highlight the role of SVR in the treatment of large AVMs, to discuss the outcome comparing it to other treatment modalities, and to discuss the potential improvement that could be introduced to this method of treatment.