J Korean Med Assoc Search

CLOSE


J Korean Med Assoc > Volume 68(10); 2025 > Article
Baek, Shin, and Yee: Linear-accelerator-based hypofractionated radiotherapy for large brain metastases in Korea: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Purpose: The use of hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HFSRT) for large brain metastases has been steadily increasing. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linear accelerator-based HFSRT as a primary treatment option for large brain metastases without prior surgical resection.
Methods: Between December 2013 and April 2022, 17 patients with brain metastases larger than 10 cm³ underwent HFSRT. Local control was assessed on a per-lesion basis. HFSRT was delivered using linear accelerator equipment (Novalis Tx; Varian Medical Systems).
Results: Fourteen patients (82.4%) received 3 treatment fractions, while 2 patients received 2 and 5 fractions, respectively. Radiation-induced acute toxicity was reported in one case within the 3-fraction group, presenting with headache and vomiting. For multiple lesions, the median time to local failure was 0.2 months, compared with 2.8 months for single lesions (P=0.011). The 1-year local control rate was 68.2%. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 29.4%, and the 2-year OS rate was 11.8% for the total cohort.
Conclusion: Linear accelerator-based HFSRT is both effective and safe for the treatment of large brain metastases and may be considered a primary treatment approach. In this study, the 1-year local control rate and 1-year survival rate were 68.2% and 29.4%, respectively. To reduce the risk of posttreatment swelling, the total dose should not exceed a biologically effective dose of 64.65 Gy, and delivery in 3 fractions appears safe with respect to radiation toxicity.

Introduction

1. Background

Depending on the underlying tumor type, up to 30% of all cancer patients develop brain metastases during the course of their disease [1]. The optimal treatment strategy for these tumors has not yet been fully established. Proposed options include surgery with postoperative radiation to either the resection cavity or the whole brain, whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone, or hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HFSRT) [215]. However, local control (LC) rates for large brain metastases are known to be inferior compared with those for smaller lesions [3,4,1318]. When feasible, surgery followed by postoperative radiation should be considered to decrease mass effect, relieve neurological symptoms, and facilitate overall management [19]. For patients with large brain metastases who cannot undergo surgical resection, WBRT has traditionally been regarded as the standard of care. More recently, however, SRS has become an increasingly preferred treatment due to its ability to achieve excellent LC while minimizing long-term toxicity, particularly neurocognitive decline compared with WBRT [9,20,21]. SRS alone is highly effective for small metastases, but as tumor size increases, the maximum safe dose decreases, thereby limiting efficacy [22]. Because of normal tissue tolerance constraints, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 90-05 trial recommended maximum doses of 24 Gy, 18 Gy, and 15 Gy for recurrent brain tumors with diameters of ≤20 mm, 21–31 mm, and 31–40 mm, respectively [22]. Using this fractionation scheme, smaller lesions (<3 cm) achieved superior 1-year LC rates compared with larger lesions [14,18,23,24]. Other studies have likewise reported poor prognosis associated with brain metastases exceeding 3 cm in diameter [17]. It has been suggested that higher prescribed doses could improve LC outcomes [17,18,21,25]. However, the use of large single-fraction doses is restricted by the potential for acute and late toxicities as well as radiation exposure to nearby organs at risk, such as the brainstem or optic nerves [2628]. In recent years, HFSRT has been reported to achieve outcomes comparable to those of SRS [2933]. HFSRT offers a radiobiological advantage over SRS by improving normal tissue protection, making it a potentially more suitable treatment modality for large brain metastases [12].

2. Objectives

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linear accelerator-based HFSRT as a primary treatment for large metastases (≥10 cm³).

Methods

1. Study design

This research is a retrospective study based on data authorized for research use from a single institution.

2. Settings

Between December 2013 and April 2022, 17 patients with large brain metastases underwent HFSRT at a single institution.

3. Participants

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) tumor volume >10 cm³; (2) HFSRT as the primary treatment: (i) Surgical treatment was not feasible because the patient’s overall physical condition was poor. (ii) The families preferred non-surgical treatment options for various reasons. (3) no previous operation or radiation for the lesion; (4) available follow-up imaging after treatment.
Among patients who met the size criterion, we included those whose physical condition was inadequate for surgery or whose families chose radiation therapy as the primary treatment approach. A retrospective review of patient characteristics, treatment parameters, and follow-up data was conducted to evaluate the effects of these factors on LC and survival.

4. Variables

The diagnosis of metastatic brain disease was based on a history of a known primary tumor and the characteristic imaging appearance of brain lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patient characteristics were prospectively entered into a computerized database during treatment. These included tumor size (volume), sex, age, tumor location (supratentorial or infratentorial), presence in an eloquent area, number of metastases, tumor control status, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score, site and histology of the primary tumor, number and location of brain metastases, history of WBRT, and history of surgical resection of metastatic brain lesions. Lesions located in motor, sensory, visual, or language areas of the cerebrum, or in the brainstem, were classified as eloquent. Recurrent and/or new brain metastases were managed with palliative care, WBRT, surgery, or repeat SRS at the discretion of the treating physician and according to patient and family preferences.

5. Data sources/measurement

1) Outcome assessment

All scans were reviewed by colleague neurosurgeons (Y.H.B., D.W.S., and G.T.Y.) once available and compared with stereotactic treatment scans. LC was assessed on a per-lesion basis. In cases of multiple metastases, only the treated lesion was analyzed. Each patient’s follow-up consisted of regular clinical evaluations and serial MRI scans every 3 months. Failure of LC was defined as progressive disease on follow-up MRI according to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases criteria [34]. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from initiation of treatment to the first observation of disease progression on follow-up computed tomography (CT) or MRI. The follow-up period was defined as the time from treatment initiation to the last outpatient visit or death. Patient, disease, and treatment-related variables were evaluated for associations with LC, radiation necrosis, and survival outcomes.

2) Radiosurgery technique description

All HFSRT procedures were performed using the Novalis Tx system (Varian Medical Systems) with a customized mask for immobilization. Planning involved a CT scan and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Diagnostic gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MRI (2-mm slice thickness) and planning CT images (2.5-mm slice thickness) were fused using iPlan software (Brainlab AG) to delineate the target and organs at risk. The gross tumor volume (GTV) was defined by contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. No additional margin was added to GTV to define the clinical target volume. For planning target volume, a 1-mm margin was applied. The interval between planning CT and treatment was kept as short as possible, typically within 7 days. Treatment plans, including the choice between SRS and fractionated regimens, were discussed in intradepartmental conferences considering tumor size, location, and proximity to critical structures. Fractions were delivered on consecutive days. All patients underwent monthly evaluations for neurological status and complications, and every 3 months for tumor control and radiation necrosis assessment using contrast-enhanced MRI.

6. Bias

The relatively small sample size of the selected patient cohort and the short follow-up period may have introduced bias.

7. Study size

The patient cohort was selected from a single institution based on the specified inclusion criteria.

8. Statistical methods

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS software ver. 27.0 (IBM Corp.) and R Studio ver. 2024.04.2+764 (Posit Software PBC). Univariate analyses were conducted using the chi-square test and t-test to assess the effects of patient, disease, and treatment variables on outcomes. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate associations between sex, age, KPS score, tumor volume, metastasis location, number of metastases, eloquent location, complications, swelling, radiation dose, history of adjuvant surgery, steroid use, and outcomes including survival and LC. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated using the “pROC” package in R. A P-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. The requirement for informed consent was waived due to the study’s retrospective design.

9. Ethics statement

All patients were enrolled with approval from the institutional review board. Because of the retrospective nature of this study, informed consent was waived.

Results

1. Patient and treatment characteristics

Between December 2013 and April 2022, 17 patients underwent SRS/HFSRT for large metastatic brain tumors. The mean age was 67 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 8:9. Fourteen patients (82.4%) had a KPS score greater than 70. The mean tumor volume was 28.1 cm³ (range, 14.9–64.2 cm³). Twelve patients (70.6%) were initially treated for a single brain metastasis, while 5 patients (29.4%) were treated for multiple metastases. For patients with multiple lesions, HFSRT was applied to both the primary lesion that met selection criteria and additional lesions; however, only results related to the main lesions are reported here. The most common primary tumor was breast cancer (6 patients, 35.3%), followed by colorectal cancer (4 patients, 23.5%). All lung cancer cases were non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and all primary tumors received concurrent chemotherapy. WBRT was administered in one patient (5.6%) 7 months after HFSRT. Adjuvant surgery was performed in 2 cases (11.1%), at 5 months and 7 months following HFSRT, respectively. A summary of baseline patient data is presented in Table 1, while detailed characteristics of individual patients are provided in Table 2.
Radiosurgical treatment details are presented in Table 3. The median prescribed dose was 33 Gy (range, 30–45 Gy). The median tumor volume was 22.6 cm³. Fifteen patients (88.2%) received 3 fractions (30–41.2 Gy), while the remaining 2 received 2 (35 Gy) and 5 (45 Gy) fractions, respectively. Regarding radiation-induced radiographic changes, one patient in the 5-fraction group developed intracranial hemorrhage, and perilesional swelling was observed in 3 patients in the 3-fraction group. Radiation-induced acute toxicity occurred in one patient in the 3-fraction group, presenting with headache and vomiting.
Table 4 compares patients in the LC group and the progression group. Eight patients (47.1%) achieved LC, while 9 (52.9%) experienced progression. Within the progression group, there were 2 cases of swelling, one case of hemorrhage, and one case of radiation-induced acute toxicity (headache and vomiting). None of these adverse events occurred in the LC group.

2. Local control and survival analysis

The median PFS for the entire cohort was 7.2 months (Figure 1A). Within the progression group, 4 patients had multiple lesions and 5 had a single lesion. Patients with multiple lesions demonstrated shorter PFS compared with those with single lesions (2.6 months vs. 7.2 months, P=0.013) (Figure 1B). Univariate analysis revealed no factor significantly associated with tumor control after HFSRT.
During the follow-up period, one patient (5.6%) was alive, and 16 patients (94.4%) had died. The median follow-up duration was 8.7 months (range, 0.6–31.2 months). The median OS for the cohort was 8.7 months (95% confidence interval, 6.1–22.5 months) (Figure 1C). The 1-year LC rate was 68.2%. The 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 29.4% and 11.8%, respectively.
Subgroup analysis based on the median tumor volume (22.6 cm³) demonstrated that patients with smaller tumors had improved OS compared with those with larger tumors (hazard ratio [HR] 4.65, P=0.014). However, PFS did not differ between groups. In both univariate and multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazards model, the presence of multiple lesions was associated with significantly shorter PFS compared to single lesions (HR, 5.16; P=0.024; HR, 7.74; P=0.016; respectively). The detailed results of these analyses are shown in Table 5.

3. ROC curve for various factors

Figure 2A shows the ROC curve for biologically equivalent dose (BED) and perilesional swelling after HFSRT. A threshold of 64.65 Gy was identified, with a specificity of 0.71 and sensitivity of 1.0 (area under the curve [AUC], 0.86). This indicates that in this study, swelling occurred in all cases when the BED exceeded 64.65 Gy. Figure 2B demonstrates that the tumor volume threshold associated with tumor control failure was 17.65 cm³, with a specificity of 0.88 and sensitivity of 0.44 (AUC, 0.61).

4. Illustrative cases

1) Case 1

A 68-year-old male patient presented with headache, left limb weakness, and left hemianopsia that had developed 2 weeks prior to his visit. He had no significant past medical history of cancer. Brain MRI revealed a 4.8 cm tumor in the right parieto-occipital lobe, accompanied by perilesional edema. Chest CT demonstrated a 6×7 cm mass in the left upper lobe. A percutaneous needle biopsy confirmed a diagnosis of NSCLC.
The patient underwent HFSRT, delivered in 3 fractions for a total of 30 Gy at the 70% isodose line. Follow-up imaging showed a reduction in tumor size (from 4.7 cm to 4.1 cm), indicating effective LC. No complications or radiation-induced acute toxicities were observed. However, during subsequent chemotherapy for lung cancer, his overall condition deteriorated, and he died 8 months after the initial treatment (Figure 3A).

2) Case 2

A 59-year-old female patient with a history of surgical resection for left breast cancer, who was undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy, presented with a 5-day history of headache and dizziness. Brain imaging identified a single cerebellar lesion in the left hemisphere, measuring 4 cm in diameter with a volume of 16.2 cm³, associated with perilesional edema. The lesion was diagnosed as a metastatic brain tumor, and the patient underwent primary HFSRT, delivered in 3 fractions for a total of 33 Gy. No complications or radiation-induced acute toxicities were observed. The tumor remained well-controlled until 10.3 months later, when follow-up imaging demonstrated progression of the lesion. She has not shown signs of additional progression or the development of new lesions and has experienced no neurological symptoms. The patient has been followed for 31.2 months and continues to be monitored in the outpatient clinic (Figure 3B).

Discussion

1. Feasibility of HFSRT for large metastases

Surgical intervention has traditionally been considered the “gold standard” treatment for large solitary brain metastases. However, many patients are unsuitable candidates for craniotomy due to poor physical condition, tumor location, or limited availability of medical resources. As alternatives, SRS and HFSRT have been successfully applied to brain metastases, generally achieving satisfactory LC [12,15]. Recent studies have further demonstrated that patients treated with HFSRT often exhibit more favorable prognostic outcomes compared with those treated with SRS [35,36].
Although no standardized fractionation scheme has been established for HFSRT, multiple studies have reported high LC rates and low rates of radiation toxicity. For example, Jiang et al. [12] investigated 40 patients with a median tumor diameter of 4.1 cm (range, 3.1–5.5 cm). HFSRT was delivered as a primary treatment in 29 cases and as a salvage therapy in 11. The median dose was 40 Gy (range, 20–53 Gy), given in a median of 10 fractions (range, 4–15). The 1-year LC rate was 94.2%. No acute toxicities were observed; however, late grade 3–5 brain edema occurred in 5 patients.
Similarly, Wiggenraad et al. [37] compared HFSRT and SRS in 51 and 41 patients, respectively. When a higher dose was delivered in 3 fractions with HFSRT, the 1-year LC rate was comparable to SRS but with a lower incidence of radiation toxicity. In another study, Feuvret et al. [15] compared outcomes of HFSRT and SRS in 12 and 24 patients, respectively, and found that fractionated HFSRT achieved superior 1-year LC rates compared with SRS (100% vs. 58%) while also showing a lower incidence of toxicity.
Minniti et al. [38] also demonstrated that for patients with large brain metastases, HFSRT resulted in higher 1-year LC rates and lower toxicity compared with SRS, in cohorts of 86 and 80 patients, respectively.
In our study, 15 patients received higher doses (30–41.2 Gy) administered in 3 fractions, which is consistent with prior reports. The 6-month LC rate was approximately 70%. No cases of radionecrosis were observed. One patient developed acute radiation toxicity, presenting with headache and vomiting one day after treatment; symptoms lasted for about 2 days but improved with conservative management. Data from prior studies are summarized in Table 6 [3,5,6,11,12,15,37,3844].

2. Local control

Our results indicate that patients with multiple metastases had a higher likelihood of LC failure compared with those with a single metastasis. These findings suggest that additional treatments, such as surgical resection or WBRT in combination with HFSRT, may improve outcomes in patients with multiple lesions.
Supporting this, Xie et al. [45] reported outcomes from 50 patients treated with HFSRT (18 Gy in 3 fractions) followed by WBRT (40 Gy in 20 fractions). Nineteen patients had a single metastasis and 31 had multiple metastases. The 1-year LC rate was 90.8%, and no radiation toxicities were reported. These results suggest that HFSRT combined with WBRT can be both effective and safe for managing brain metastases. Quigley et al. [46] retrospectively analyzed LC and overall survival (OS) in 163 patients with up to 4 brain metastases who underwent either SRS alone (n=113) or surgical resection followed by postoperative SRS (n=49). Patients in the resection plus SRS group had larger maximum tumor diameters (2.8 cm vs. 1.5 cm), which led to a lower average prescription dose (15.8 Gy vs. 17.5 Gy) compared with SRS alone. Their findings indicated that gross total resection followed by postoperative SRS provided superior LC (22.5 months vs. 14.8 months for SRS alone) and improved survival in patients with tumors larger than 2 cm.
Furthermore, a meta-analysis by Akanda et al. [47] compared postoperative SRS with postoperative HFSRT. Across 14 studies using postoperative HFSRT, the mean 1-year LC rate was 87.3%, significantly higher than that of postoperative SRS (P=0.021).
In summary, current evidence suggests that for patients with multiple brain metastases, integrating HFSRT with surgical resection and/or WBRT may provide superior treatment outcomes.

3. Survival outcome

Tumor size does not appear to markedly influence OS. In our study, the median tumor diameter was 3.9 cm (range, 3–5 cm), and the median volume was 22.6 cm³ (range, 14.9–64.2 cm³). The survival rates were 29.4% at 1 year and 11.8% at 2 years. Similarly, Kwon et al. [36] conducted a study of 30 patients with a median tumor diameter of 2.1 cm (range, 1–3.6 cm), reporting survival rates of 66.7% at 6 months and 43.9% at 1 year.
Kim et al. [48] described a study of 40 patients treated with HFSRT, with a median tumor volume of 5 cm³ (range, 0.14–37.8 cm³). Their reported survival rates were 60% at 6 months and 31% at 1 year.
Taken together, these findings suggest that tumor size has only a limited impact on OS rates.

4. How to avoid complications for large metastases after HFSRT

As tumor size increases, the maximum dose that can be administered safely without inducing neurological toxicity decreases. In the RTOG 90-05 dose-escalation trial, lesions ≤2 cm, 2.1–3 cm, and 3.1–4 cm were treated with single-fraction doses of 24 Gy, 18 Gy, and 15 Gy, respectively [22]. Larger tumors generally require higher doses to achieve comparable tumor control probability; however, this is offset by a greater risk of treatment-related toxicity. Consequently, large tumor volumes are consistently associated with poorer LC [17,49,50]. In the context of HFSRT, radionecrosis has been reported in up to 10% to 15% of cases [2,5,6,10,11,15,32,3941,5154]. Comparative studies of SRS and HFSRT indicate a higher incidence of radionecrosis following single-fraction SRS. Toxicities of lesser severity (grade 1–3), according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.3 and v.4, have been reported in 2% to 52% of patients undergoing HFSRT [11,15,32,53]. While no cases of radionecrosis were observed in the present study, this should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of the safety of HFSRT. Our findings may have been influenced by the small sample size, limited patient survival, and short follow-up duration.
Although no standardized protocol currently exists for HFSRT dose and fractionation, ROC curve analysis in this study suggests that the total BED should not exceed 64.65 Gy. In practice, treatment plans should be tailored to the patient’s overall medical condition. For patients with multiple lesions, especially when large metastases are present, surgical resection should be performed when feasible, and HFSRT should be applied to the remaining lesions. This combined approach appears to be the most reasonable strategy.

5. Conclusion

Linear accelerator-based HFSRT represents a viable treatment option for selected patients with large brain metastases. In this study, the 1-year LC rate and 1-year survival rate were 68.2% and 29.4%, respectively, with a median PFS of 7.2 months. To minimize the risk of posttreatment swelling, the total BED should not exceed 64.65 Gy, and treatment delivered in 3 fractions appears to be safe with respect to radiation toxicity.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

None.

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Figure 1.
(A) Local control rates of total cohort. (B) Local control rates of subgroup (single vs. multiple lesions). (C) Survival rates of total cohort.
jkma-25-0050f1.jpg
Figure 2.
(A) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for biologically effective dose (BED) and perilesional swelling after hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. (B) The tumor volume threshold related to tumor control failure.
jkma-25-0050f2.jpg
Figure 3.
(A) Gd-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance images. Lung cancer brain metastasis in a 68-year-old man. (B) Gd-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance images. Breast cancer brain metastasis in a 59-year-old woman.
jkma-25-0050f3.jpg
Table 1.
Demographic features of the patients
Demographic Value (n=17)
Age (yr) 67 (45–82)
 Male 8 (47.1)
Mean diameter (cm) 3.9 (3–5)
Mean volume (cm3) 28.1 (14.9–64.2)
Side
 Right 6 (35.3)
 Left 10 (58.8)
 Both 1 (5.9)
Eloquent
 No 8 (47.1)
 Yes 9 (52.9)
No. of metastases
 Single 12 (70.6)
 Multiple 5 (29.4)
Progression
 No 8 (47.1)
 Yes 9 (52.9)
Primary tumor
 Lung 3 (17.6)
 Breast 6 (35.3)
 Colorectal 4 (23.5)
 Hepatocellular carcinoma 1 (5.9)
 Others 3 (17.6)
Preoperative-KPS
 <70 3 (17.6)
 ≥70 14 (82.4)
WBRT
 No 16 (94.1)
 Yes 1 (5.9)
Steroid treatment
 No 4 (23.5)
 Yes 13 (76.5)

Values are presented as mean (range) or number (%).

KPS, Karnofsky performance status; WBRT, whole-brain radiotherapy.

Table 2.
Clinical characteristics of individual patients
Sex Age (yr) Size (cm) Side Location Multiple lesion Eloquent PTE LMS Dose (Gy) Fx BED (Gy)a) Volume (cc) Progression PFS (mo) Survival OS (mo) Origin initial KPS Cx Swelling Acute toxicity
M 78 3.9 Both Cbll No No No No 30 3 60 15.7 No Death 10.5 Colorectal 60 No No No
F 76 3.3 Rt T-P No Yes Yes No 30 3 60 18.2 No Death 10.8 Breast 90 No No No
F 63 4.3 Lt Cbll Yes No No No 30 3 60 15.6 Yes 2.6 Death 22.5 NSCLC 80 No Yes No
F 71 3.9 Lt Cbll No No Yes No 33 3 69.3 22.9 No Death 9.3 Breast 80 No No No
F 68 3.6 Lt F No Yes Yes No 30 3 60 35 Yes 6.1 Death 20.2 Ovary 80 No No No
F 57 3.6 Rt Cbll No No Yes Yes 30 3 60 14.9 Yes 7.2 Death 27.0 Breast 80 No Yes H, V
M 61 3.3 Rt Cbll No No Yes No 30 3 60 22.5 No Death 6.3 Colorectal 90 No No No
M 67 3.3 Rt Cbll Yes No Yes No 33 3 69.3 17.1 Yes 3.5 Death 4.7 NSCLC 90 No No No
M 82 3.3 Lt P Yes Yes Yes No 35 2 96.3 39.2 Yes 1.1 Death 1.8 Colorectal 70 No No No
M 67 5 Lt T-O No Yes Yes No 36.6 3 81.2 64.2 Yes 5.6 Death 6.1 HCC 50 No No No
F 77 4.9 Rt O No No Yes No 41.2 3 97.4 41 No Death 2.1 Breast 70 No No No
M 68 4.8 Rt P-O No No Yes No 37.5 3 84.4 54.4 No Death 8.0 NSCLC 90 No No No
F 51 3.2 Lt T No Yes Yes Yes 37.5 3 84.4 18.5 Yes 7.1 Death 23.2 Breast 80 No No No
M 74 4.5 Lt P-O Yes Yes Yes No 41.2 3 97.4 35.9 No Death 8.7 Leiomyosarcoma 50 No No No
F 59 4 Lt Cbll No Yes Yes No 41.2 3 97.4 16.2 Yes 10.3 Alive 31.2 Breast 90 No No No
F 45 3.9 Lt Cbll Yes Yes Yes No 45 5 85.5 24 Yes 0.6 Death 0.6 Colorectal 80 ICH No No
M 56 3 Lt P Yes Yes Yes No 30 3 60 22.6 No Death 3.5 Renal 80 No Yes No

PTE, peritumoral edema; LMS, leptomeningeal seeding; Fx, fraction; BED, biologically effective dose; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; Cx, chemotherapy; M, male; F, female; Rt, right; Lt, left; Cbll, cerebellum; T-P, temporoparietal; F, frontal; P, parietal; T-O, temporo-occipital; O, occipital; P-O, parieto-occipital; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; H, headache; V, vomiting; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage.

a) BED values were calculated using an α/β ratio of 10 for malignant tumors.

Table 3.
Radiosurgery details
Factors Value
Fractionation (n, Gy)
 2 1 (35)
 3 15 (30–41.2)
 5 1 (45)
Median dose (Gy) 33
Median volume (cm3) 22.6
Acute radiation toxicity (headache, vomiting) (n) 1
Complication (n) 4
 Swelling 3
 Hemorrhage 1
Table 4.
Comparison between the local control group and the progression group
Local control (n=8) Progression (n=9) P-value
Factors
Age (yr) 72.5 (64.5–76.5) 63.0 (57.0–67.0) 0.10
Sex 0.47
 Male 5 (62.5) 3 (33.3)
 Female 3 (37.5) 6 (66.7)
Size 3.9 (3.3–4.7) 3.6 (3.3–4.0) 0.81
Dose 3,150.0 (3,000.0–3,937.5) 3,500.0 (3,000.0–3,750.0) 0.65
BED 64.7 (60.0–91.3) 81.3 (60.0–85.5) 0.73
Volume 22.8 (20.4–38.5) 18.5 (16.2–35.0) 0.48
Fractionation 0.36
 2 0 (0) 1 (11.1)
 3 8 (100.0) 7 (77.8)
 5 0 (0) 1 (11.1)
Side 0.20
 Right 4 (50.0) 2 (22.2)
 Left 3 (37.5) 7 (77.8)
 Both 1 (12.5) 0 (0)
Multiple lesions 1 (12.5) 4 (44.4) 0.36
Eloquent 3 (37.5) 6 (66.7) 0.47
Motor cortex 3 (37.5) 2 (22.2) 0.87
PTE 7 (87.5) 8 (88.9) 1
cyst 1 (12.5) 1 (11.1) 1
LMS 0 (0) 2 (22.2) 0.51
Extracranial 7 (87.5) 8 (88.9) 1
Swelling 1 (12.5) 2 (22.2) 1
Steroid 5 (62.5) 8 (88.9) 0.48
Acute toxicity 0 (0) 1 (11.1) 1
Initial KPS 0.66
 <70 2 (25.0) 1 (11.1)
 >70 6 (75.0) 8 (88.9)

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).

BED, biologically effective dose; PTE, peritumoral edema; LMS, leptomeningeal seeding; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Table 5.
Univariate and multivariate analyses for overall survival and progression-free survival
Factor Univariate analysis P-value Multiple analysis P-value
HR (CI) HR (CI)
Overall survival
 Multiple lesions 2.20 (0.73–6.64) 0.2 2.52 (0.80–7.91) 0.11
 Eloquent area 0.89 (0.33–2.38) 0.8 - -
 Swelling 0.61 (0.17–2.21) 0.5 - -
 Volume (≥22.6 cm³) 4.65 (1.36–15.8) 0.014 3.79 (0.71–20.1) 0.12
 Age (≥65 yr) 3.35 (0.88–12.7) 0.076 1.54 (0.25–9.55) 0.6
Progression-free survival
 Multiple lesions 5.16 (1.24–21.5) 0.024 7.74 (1.46–41.1) 0.016
 Eloquent area 1.87 (0.46–7.54) 0.4 - -
 Swelling 2.08 (0.41–10.5) 0.4 - -
 Volume (≥22.6 cm³) 1.27 (0.31–5.10) 0.7 2.41 (0.32–18.2) 0.4
 Age (≥65 yr) 0.46 (0.12–1.73) 0.3 0.15 (0.02–1.17) 0.07

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; -, not available.

Table 6.
Previously published studies on SRS/HFSRT for large brain metastases
Study Patient (n) Median size (diameter or volume) Dose Modality 1-Year local control (%) Radiation toxicity (patient)
Han et al. [3] 80 3.9 cm 10–16 Gy in 1 Fx Gamma Knife 85 31 Patients (38.8%); 16 patients, radio–necrosis; 15 patients, RTOG CNS toxicity; Gr 3, 7; Gr 4, 6; Gr 5, 2
Zimmerman et al. [42] 62 3.5 (3.0–5.8) cm 10–18 Gy in 1 Fx Gamma Knife 68 4 Patients (6.5%); radio–necrosis
Jiang et al. [12] 40 4.1 (3.1–5.5) cm 40 (20–53) Gy in 10 (4–15) Fx; boost 20 (10–35) Gy in 4 (2–10) Fx (23 patients, 1–3 mo after Tx) Novalis 94.2 Acute toxicity, none; late toxicity; brain edema, 5
Higuchi et al. [39] 43 3–4.5 cm, ≥10 cm³ 30 Gy in 3 Fx 76 None
Eaton et al. [43] 42 3.9 (0.8–6.4) cm 21 Gy in 3 Fx, 28; 24 Gy in 4 Fx, 6; 30 Gy in 5 Fx, 5 IMRT or DCA 61 Radio–necrosis, 3
Feuvret et al. [15] 12 4.4 cm 23.1 Gy in 3 Fx Clinac 100 None
Inoue et al. [40] 88 (92 lesions); Gr 1, 61; Gr 2, 18; Gr 3, 13 16.2 cm³ Gr 1, 10–19.9 cm3: 27–30 Gy in 3 Fx; Gr 2, 20–29.0 cm3: 31–35 Gy in 5 Fx; Gr 3, >30 cm3: 35–42 Gy in 8–10 Fx CyberKnife Marginal recurrences: Gr 1, 93; Gr 2, 89; Gr 3, 100 Brain edema: Gr 1, 5; Gr 2, 4; Gr 3, 1
Minniti et al. [11] 138 12.5 cm³ 27 Gy in 3 Fx LINAC 90% (for lesions ≥3 cm, 73) 9% for WBRT, 14% for lesions >3 cm
Navarria et al. [6] 102; Gr 1, 51; Gr 2, 51 16.3 cm³, 2.9 cm Gr 1, 2.1–3 cm: 27 Gy in 3 Fx; Gr 2, 3.1–5 cm: 32 Gy in 4 Fx RapidArc 96%; Gr 1, 100; Gr 2, 91 Gr 3, radio–necrosis: 6; Gr 1–2, headache: 12; Gr 1–2, hydrocephalus: 6; Gr 1–2 ischemia cerebrovascular: 6
Murai et al. [5] 54 ≥2.5 cm; 2.5–3 cm, 3 Fx; ≥4 cm, 5 Fx Gr 1, 18–22 Gy/3 Fx, 21–25 Gy/5 Fx; Gr 2, 22–27 Gy/3 Fx, 25–31 Gy/5 Fx; Gr 3, 27–30 Gy/3 Fx, 31–35 Gy/5 Fx CyberKnife 69; Gr 1, 66; Gr 2, 65; Gr 3, 68 None
Yomo and Hayashi [41] 27 17.8 cm³ 20–31 Gy in 2 Fx Gamma Knife 61 2 Patients: emesis (CTCAE Gr 3 toxicity); 1 patient: symptomatic radiation injury (hemiparesis, CTCAE Gr 3 toxicity)
Wegner et al. [44] 36 15.6 cm³ 12–27 Gy in 2–5 Fx CyberKnife 63 None
Wiggenraad et al. [37] HFSRT, 51/SRS, 41 >3 cm/>3 cm 24 Gy in 3 Fx/15 Gy in 1 Fx Novalis 61/61 8 (15.7%) (Pseudoprogression)/10 (24.4%) (Pseudoprogression)
Minniti et al. [38] HFSRT, 138/SRS, 151 2–3 cm, 78; >3 cm, 86/2–3 cm, 99; >3 cm, 80 27 Gy in 3 Fx: 2-3 cm 18 Gy in 1 Fx/≥3 cm 15-16 Gy in 1 Fx Novalis 91/77 11 (8%) Radio–necrosis/31 (20%) Radio–necrosis
Present study 17; Gr 1, 1; Gr 2, 15; Gr 3, 1 22.6 (14.9–64.2) cm³ Gr 1, 35 Gy in 2 Fx; Gr 2, 30–41.2 Gy in 3 Fx; Gr 3, 45 Gy in 5 Fx Novalis 6 mo: 70 Radio–necrosis, none; headache, vomiting, 1 (Gr 2); swelling, 3 (Gr 2); hemorrhage: 1 (Gr 3)

SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery; HFSRT, hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy; Gy, Gray; Fx, fraction; RTOG, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; CNS, central nervous system; Gr, grade; Tx, treatment; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy; DCA, dynamic conformal arc; LINAC, linear accelerator; WBRT, whole-brain radiotherapy; CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

References

1. Waltenberger M, Bernhardt D, Diehl C, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HFSRT) versus single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to the resection cavity of brain metastases after surgical resection (SATURNUS): study protocol for a randomized phase III trial. BMC Cancer 2023;23:709.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
2. Angelov L, Mohammadi AM, Bennett EE, et al. Impact of 2-staged stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of brain metastases ≥ 2 cm. J Neurosurg 2018;129:366–382.
crossref pmid
3. Han JH, Kim DG, Chung HT, Paek SH, Park CK, Jung HW. Radiosurgery for large brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83:113–120.
crossref pmid
4. Lee CC, Yen CP, Xu Z, Schlesinger D, Sheehan J. Large intracranial metastatic tumors treated by Gamma Knife surgery: outcomes and prognostic factors. J Neurosurg 2014;120:52–59.
crossref pmid
5. Murai T, Ogino H, Manabe Y, et al. Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy using CyberKnife for the treatment of large brain metastases: a dose escalation study. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2014;26:151–158.
crossref pmid
6. Navarria P, Pessina F, Cozzi L, et al. Hypo-fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy alone using volumetric modulated arc therapy for patients with single, large brain metastases unsuitable for surgical resection. Radiat Oncol 2016;11:76.
crossref pmid pmc
7. Sneed PK, Suh JH, Goetsch SJ, et al. A multi-institutional review of radiosurgery alone vs. radiosurgery with whole brain radiotherapy as the initial management of brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:519–526.
crossref pmid
8. Mehta MP, Tsao MN, Whelan TJ, et al. The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based review of the role of radiosurgery for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:37–46.
crossref pmid
9. Brown PD, Jaeckle K, Ballman KV, et al. Effect of radiosurgery alone vs radiosurgery with whole brain radiation therapy on cognitive function in patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;316:401–409.
crossref pmid pmc
10. Jeong WJ, Park JH, Lee EJ, Kim JH, Kim CJ, Cho YH. Efficacy and safety of fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for large brain metastases. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2015;58:217–224.
crossref pmid pmc
11. Minniti G, D'Angelillo RM, Scaringi C, et al. Fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with brain metastases. J Neurooncol 2014;117:295–301.
crossref pmid pdf
12. Jiang XS, Xiao JP, Zhang Y, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases larger than three centimeters. Radiat Oncol 2012;7:36.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
13. Ogura K, Mizowaki T, Ogura M, et al. Outcomes of hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for metastatic brain tumors with high risk factors. J Neurooncol 2012;109:425–432.
crossref pmid pdf
14. Ebner D, Rava P, Gorovets D, Cielo D, Hepel JT. Stereotactic radiosurgery for large brain metastases. J Clin Neurosci 2015;22:1650–1654.
crossref pmid
15. Feuvret L, Vinchon S, Martin V, et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy for large solitary brain metastases. Cancer Radiother 2014;18:97–106.
crossref pmid
16. Baschnagel AM, Meyer KD, Chen PY, et al. Tumor volume as a predictor of survival and local control in patients with brain metastases treated with Gamma Knife surgery. J Neurosurg 2013;119:1139–1144.
crossref pmid
17. Molenaar R, Wiggenraad R, Verbeek-de Kanter A, Walchenbach R, Vecht C. Relationship between volume, dose and local control in stereotactic radiosurgery of brain metastasis. Br J Neurosurg 2009;23:170–178.
crossref pmid
18. Vogelbaum MA, Angelov L, Lee SY, Li L, Barnett GH, Suh JH. Local control of brain metastases by stereotactic radiosurgery in relation to dose to the tumor margin. J Neurosurg 2006;104:907–912.
crossref pmid
19. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of single metastases to the brain: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998;280:1485–1489.
crossref pmid
20. Chang EL, Wefel JS, Hess KR, et al. Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:1037–1044.
crossref pmid
21. Aoyama H, Tago M, Kato N, et al. Neurocognitive function of patients with brain metastasis who received either whole brain radiotherapy plus stereotactic radiosurgery or radiosurgery alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:1388–1395.
crossref pmid
22. Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, et al. Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:291–298.
crossref pmid
23. Elliott RE, Rush SC, Morsi A, et al. Local control of newly diagnosed and distally recurrent, low-volume brain metastases with fixed-dose (20 gy) gamma knife radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 2011;68:921–931.
crossref pmid pdf
24. Schoeggl A, Kitz K, Ertl A, Reddy M, Bavinzski G, Schneider B. Prognostic factor analysis for multiple brain metastases after gamma knife radiosurgery: results in 97 patients. J Neurooncol 1999;42:169–175.
crossref pmid pdf
25. Mohammadi AM, Schroeder JL, Angelov L, et al. Impact of the radiosurgery prescription dose on the local control of small (2 cm or smaller) brain metastases. J Neurosurg 2017;126:735–743.
crossref pmid
26. Mayo C, Martel MK, Marks LB, Flickinger J, Nam J, Kirkpatrick J. Radiation dose-volume effects of optic nerves and chiasm. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(3 Suppl):S28–S35.
crossref pmid
27. Mayo C, Yorke E, Merchant TE. Radiation associated brainstem injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(3 Suppl):S36–S41.
crossref pmid pmc
28. Tishler RB, Loeffler JS, Lunsford Ld, et al. Tolerance of cranial nerves of the cavernous sinus to radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;27:215–221.
crossref pmid
29. Tokuuye K, Akine Y, Sumi M, et al. Reirradiation of brain and skull base tumors with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;40:1151–1155.
crossref pmid
30. Manning MA, Cardinale RM, Benedict SH, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy as an alternative to radiosurgery for the treatment of patients with brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:603–608.
crossref pmid
31. Lindvall P, Bergström P, Löfroth PO, Henriksson R, Bergenheim AT. Hypofractionated conformal stereotactic radiotherapy alone or in combination with whole-brain radiotherapy in patients with cerebral metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61:1460–1466.
crossref pmid
32. Ernst-Stecken A, Ganslandt O, Lambrecht U, Sauer R, Grabenbauer G. Phase II trial of hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases: results and toxicity. Radiother Oncol 2006;81:18–24.
crossref pmid
33. Narayana A, Chang J, Yenice K, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with one or two brain metastases. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2007;85:82–87.
crossref pmid pdf
34. Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, et al. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:e270–e278.
crossref pmid
35. Aoyama H, Shirato H, Onimaru R, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy alone without whole-brain irradiation for patients with solitary and oligo brain metastasis using noninvasive fixation of the skull. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:793–800.
crossref pmid
36. Kwon AK, Dibiase SJ, Wang B, Hughes SL, Milcarek B, Zhu Y. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for the treatment of brain metastases. Cancer 2009;115:890–898.
crossref pmid
37. Wiggenraad R, Verbeek-de Kanter A, Mast M, et al. Local progression and pseudo progression after single fraction or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for large brain metastases: a single centre study. Strahlenther Onkol 2012;188:696–701.
crossref pmid pdf
38. Minniti G, Scaringi C, Paolini S, et al. Single-fraction versus multifraction (3 × 9 Gy) stereotactic radiosurgery for large (>2 cm) brain metastases: a comparative analysis of local control and risk of radiation-induced brain necrosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016;95:1142–1148.
crossref pmid
39. Higuchi Y, Serizawa T, Nagano O, et al. Three-staged stereotactic radiotherapy without whole brain irradiation for large metastatic brain tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:1543–1548.
crossref pmid
40. Inoue HK, Sato H, Suzuki Y, et al. Optimal hypofractionated conformal radiotherapy for large brain metastases in patients with high risk factors: a single-institutional prospective study. Radiat Oncol 2014;9:231.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
41. Yomo S, Hayashi M. A minimally invasive treatment option for large metastatic brain tumors: long-term results of two-session Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery. Radiat Oncol 2014;9:132.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
42. Zimmerman AL, Murphy ES, Suh JH, et al. Treatment of large Brain Metastases With Stereotactic Radiosurgery. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2016;15:186–195.
crossref pmid pdf
43. Eaton BR, Gebhardt B, Prabhu R, et al. Hypofractionated radiosurgery for intact or resected brain metastases: defining the optimal dose and fractionation. Radiat Oncol 2013;8:135.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
44. Wegner RE, Leeman JE, Kabolizadeh P, et al. Fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for large brain metastases. Am J Clin Oncol 2015;38:135–139.
crossref pmid
45. Xie XY, Peng HH, Zhang X, Pan YL, Zhang Z, Cao PG. Retrospective study of hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy combined with whole brain radiotherapy for patients with brain metastases. Radiat Oncol 2022;17:132.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
46. Quigley MR, Bello N, Jho D, Fuhrer R, Karlovits S, Buchinsky FJ. Estimating the additive benefit of surgical excision to stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of metastatic brain disease. Neurosurgery 2015;76:707–713.
crossref pmid pdf
47. Akanda ZZ, Hong W, Nahavandi S, Haghighi N, Phillips C, Kok DL. Post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery following excision of brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2020;142:27–35.
crossref pmid
48. Kim YJ, Cho KH, Kim JY, et al. Single-dose versus fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81:483–489.
crossref pmid
49. Shiau CY, Sneed PK, Shu HK, et al. Radiosurgery for brain metastases: relationship of dose and pattern of enhancement to local control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;37:375–383.
crossref pmid
50. Yang HC, Kano H, Lunsford LD, Niranjan A, Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D. What factors predict the response of larger brain metastases to radiosurgery? Neurosurgery 2011;68:682–690.
crossref pmid pdf
51. Dohm A, McTyre ER, Okoukoni C, et al. Staged stereotactic radiosurgery for large brain metastases: local control and clinical outcomes of a one-two punch technique. Neurosurgery 2018;83:114–121.
crossref pmid pdf
52. Fahrig A, Ganslandt O, Lambrecht U, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases: results from three different dose concepts. Strahlenther Onkol 2007;183:625–630.
crossref pmid pdf
53. Fokas E, Henzel M, Surber G, Kleinert G, Hamm K, Engenhart-Cabillic R. Stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy: comparison of efficacy and toxicity in 260 patients with brain metastases. J Neurooncol 2012;109:91–98.
crossref pmid pdf
54. Rajakesari S, Arvold ND, Jimenez RB, et al. Local control after fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy for brain metastases. J Neurooncol 2014;120:339–346.
crossref pmid pdf
TOOLS
Share :
Facebook Twitter Linked In Line it
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •   Scopus
  • 461 View
  • 57 Download
Related articles in
J Korean Med Assoc


ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
37 Ichon-ro 46-gil, Yongsan-gu, Seoul 04427, Korea
Tel: +82-2-6350-6651    Fax: +82-2-792-5208    E-mail: office@jkma.org                

Copyright © 2025 by Korean Medical Association.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next