Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Spine Tumors

Published on 11/04/2015 by admin

Filed under Orthopaedics

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1902 times

49 Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Spine Tumors

Introduction

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the spine is a noninvasive technique that accurately delivers large doses of radiation to small targets, through the use of numerous highly collimated cross-fired beams. Spinal SRS has proved effective in treating most metastases, many benign intradural tumors, some intramedullary tumors, and compact intramedullary arteriovenous malformations. It can be used for the older patient or in patients with widely metastatic disease, when open surgery might be contraindicated.

Radiosurgery was developed in 1949 by Lars Leksell and Bjorn Larsson at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Their first system used orthovoltage x-rays, and a subsequent variant used a proton beam generated by a cyclotron. Leksell’s Gamma Knife was introduced in 1967, as a lower cost and more efficient system. Gamma Knife treatments provided a steeper dose gradient outside the target region. Embedded in a cast-iron enclosure, the device contained 201 radioactive cobalt sources focused at a single point or isocenter. During treatment, the patient’s head was secured to a rigid frame with pins and then inserted into the cast-iron device with the lesion positioned at the isocenter. In the mid-1980s, to make radiosurgery more accessible and less costly, Betti and Colombo modified conventional radiotherapy linear accelerator-based (LINAC) systems to deliver frame-based radiosurgery. Although both the Gamma Knife and LINAC systems were powerful tools for intracranial disease, they could not be easily adapted for extracranial cases, primarily because of the necessity for frame-based target localization.

In 1991, the frameless CyberKnife system was developed by Adler at Stanford University. From its inception, this device was intended to treat both cranial and extracranial lesions with sub-millimeter accuracy. Since the installation of the first clinical unit in 1994, over 8000 spinal lesions have been treated at more than 180 worldwide CyberKnife sites. As in cranial radiosurgery, spinal SRS delivers large but precise doses of radiation to a target while sparing adjacent healthy tissues. In comparison, conventional radiotherapy doses are limited by the sensitivity of the spinal cord.

Radiosurgery

Ionizing radiation damages DNA, protein, and lipids by creating free radicals and causing either mitotic or apoptotic cell death. Larger doses, while more effective in killing neoplastic tissues, endanger normal structures. Conventional radiotherapy, which uses small numbers of broad and relatively inaccurate beams, addresses the problem by dividing the dose over many daily treatments. In contrast, SRS instruments can deliver scores of small, precisely collimated beams. As a consequence, large radiation doses can be directed at irregularly shaped lesions while avoiding adjacent radiosensitive tissue. The target’s location and shape are delineated using computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) images, and processed using dedicated treatment-planning software. Current radiosurgery systems capable of treating spinal lesions include the CyberKnife, the Tomoscan (a CT-like device) and various modified linear accelerators (LINACs). The Gamma Knife is currently able to treat only select upper cervical lesions.

The CyberKnife system is a completely frameless, image-guided, robotic radiosurgery system which consists, in part, of a lightweight, six megavolt

Clinical Case Examples

Case 1

MC, a 66-year-old woman with medical contraindications to open surgery, was treated with SRS for a spinal schwannoma. She initially presented with a chronic cough and generalized weakness. Routine laboratory studies showed pancytopenia, and flow cytometry was consistent with acute lymphocytic leukemia. The diagnosis was confirmed by bone marrow biopsy. While undergoing chemotherapy in December 2008, she developed lower back pain with subjective right leg weakness. A 10-by 7-mm epidural lesion, compressing the S1 nerve root, was seen on MRI (Figure 49-1). A CT-guided biopsy was consistent with schwannoma, but definitive treatment was postponed because of her leukemia. By July 2009, the pain became intolerable. She had 4/5 gastrocnemius weakness, numbness in the S1 distribution, and loss of the ankle reflex. A repeat MRI confirmed an increase in the size of the schwannoma. Open surgery remained high risk, so in September 2009, the patient underwent CyberKnife treatment. She received 16 Gray (Gy) in a single session. Pain complaints improved, and all examination findings resolved over 2 months.

linear accelerator attached to an industrial robot (Figure 49-3). The robotic arm is unconstrained, using six degrees of freedom to deliver beams to virtually any part of the body from a wide range of angles. During treatment, real-time orthogonal images of the patient are obtained frequently, enabling the system to identify and automatically correct for small changes in patient position.

Several conventional radiation therapy systems have been modified to provide spinal SRS. The BrainLab Novalis and TX systems both use floor- and ceiling-mounted x-ray cameras to verify patient position during therapy. In contrast, the Varian Trilogy and Elektra Synergy systems utilize cone-beam CT scanners mounted on the gantry of the LINAC. The cone CT scanners acquire images before treatment, but do not do so regularly during each session, and cannot always accommodate for changes in patient movement during therapy.

Indications for Spinal Radiosurgery

Indications for spinal SRS continue to evolve (Tables 49-1 and 49-2). The most commonly treated spinal lesions are metastatic (Table 49-3). A biopsy may not be necessary prior to treatment if the diagnosis is clear from the clinical history and imaging. Ideally, lesions should be less than 5 cm in maximal diameter, well demarcated, and clearly seen on CT and/or MRI. For most tumors, local control rates are equivalent or superior to conventional radiation and complications are generally lower than with open surgery. In some particular cases, spinal SRS may be useful for ablating the more radioresistant tumors.1 However, in those previously irradiated patients where the adjacent spinal cord has already received the maximum tolerated radiation dosage, the efficacy of spinal radiosurgery may be compromised because of the need to lower the radiosurgical dose.

TABLE 49-1 Indications for Spinal SRS

Tumors that are highly radiosensitive.
Post-resection cavity
Post-radiation therapy local irradiation
Recurrent disease post surgery and/or irradiation
Inoperable lesion
High-risk location of lesion
Slowly progressive but minimal neurological deficits
Patient with medical comorbidities that preclude surgery
Patient declines surgery.

TABLE 49-2 Contraindications for Spinal SRS

Spinal instability
Neurological deficit due to physical spinal cord or nerve root compression
Adjacent cord previously irradiated to the maximum dosage
Generalized metastatic involvement of the axial skeleton
Epidural carcinomatosis

TABLE 49-3 Lesions Treatable with CyberKnife Radiosurgery

Tumors
Benign

Malignant/metastatic

Vascular Malformations

Spinal SRS is contraindicated in several situations. When there is significant cord or nerve root compression resulting in severe or progressive neurological deficits, surgery may yield the best outcome. This is especially true for bony or benign lesions, which involute slowly following treatment. In the presence of spinal instability, SRS should only be performed as an adjuvant therapy after decompression and stabilization or vertebroplasty has been performed first. In cases in which there is no known systemic disease and pathology cannot be reasonably ascertained by radiographic studies, radiosurgery is contraindicated without first establishing a diagnosis. Some large tumors are best treated with a debulking procedure followed by SRS.

Treatment Details

Image-guided systems do not require rigid immobilization or invasive frames. Instead, noninvasive custom masks or cradles are made for each patient and used during image acquisition and radiosurgery. These devices improve comfort, expedite alignment, and limit movement. For upper cervical lesions, a thermoplastic mask is made for each patient (Aquaplast, WFR Corp., Wyckoff, NJ; Figure 49-4A). For thoracic and lumbar lesions a custom vacuum-molded body cradle is used (AlphaCradle, Smithers Medical Products, Inc., Akron, OH; Figure 49-4B). For some cervicothoracic lesions, both devices are utilized.

Bony landmarks of the spine are used to target cervical, thoracic, and lumbar lesions, as well as some pelvic lesions, scapular and rib head masses, and paravertebral soft tissue tumors. The presence of spinal stabilization hardware does not interfere with target localization. Digitally-reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) are created as part of the treatment plan and are used to establish the relationship of the target to regional bony landmarks. The accuracy of CyberKnife using bony landmarks approaches ±0.5 mm2.

For lesions not associated with bony landmarks, or where there is severe osteoporosis, localization may be based on implanted fiducials. Stainless steel screws in adjacent bone, or “gold seeds” adjacent to or within the lesion, can be inserted prior to imaging (Figure 49-5). A minimum of three clearly visible, non-collinear fiducials is needed. Ideally, they are placed in bone or firm tissue, surround the target lesion, and do not overlap in 45° oblique images. Prior to treatment delivery, the tumor location relative to the implants or bony landmarks is established based on DRRs. The accuracy using implanted fiducials may be lower than with bony landmarks and depends on the number and location of the implants.2

Most patients are imaged and treated supine. Treatment planning begins with a fine cut CT scan, (1.25-mm slices). The CT has the special resolution of available technologies and is required to delineate the lesion (Figure 49-6) and create the DRRs used for localization (Figure 49-7). MRIs, positron emission tomography (PET) scans, or three-dimensional (3-D) angiograms are commonly used in addition. Treatment plans for CyberKnife are designed using the Accuray Multiplan System (Figure 49-8). The various stereotactic image sets needed for target definition are transferred to the planning computer and aligned to one another using a semi-automatic process. Utilizing a graphic interface, the surgeon outlines the target lesion and adjacent radiation-sensitive structures, such as the spinal cord, esophagus, or kidneys, creating a 3-D representation of relevant anatomy (Figure 49-9). A dose and treatment schedule is specified by the surgeon and the radiation oncologist. A radiation physicist computes treatment plans, seeking an optimal dose conformation and a corresponding array of treatment beams. Physical parameters are adjusted and refined iteratively until an optimal plan is obtained. Ideally, the beams are evenly distributed over the surface of the target, the target receives at least the prescribed dose, and the dose to adjacent structures is minimized.

Spinal SRS is an outpatient procedure. At the time of treatment, patients are positioned so that the lesion is near the center of an imaginary 80 cm diameter sphere. Orthogonal images are obtained by the digital x-ray cameras and compared with precalculated DRRs. The couch position is adjusted and the location of the target is confirmed. The robotic arm then moves the LINAC to each of the individual beam positions, and each beam’s dose is delivered. During treatment, images are repeated frequently and the couch position is adjusted to preserve accuracy. The process is automatic, but is monitored closely by a radiation therapist.

Treatment of Spinal Metastases

In older populations, the majority of spinal tumors are metastatic (see Case 2). Forty percent of cancer patients develop at least one spinal metastasis. SRS is perhaps the least invasive of available treatments, and can deliver much higher doses than conventional radiotherapy while limiting cord exposure. SRS generally takes 1 to 3 days, while conventional radiotherapy may require 4 to 6 weeks. Multiple lesions can be treated safely and, because of the shorter treatment schedules, the treatment of asynchronous metastases is more convenient. SRS is appropriate as an adjuvant following a debulking procedure or in conjunction with a stabilization procedure such as fusion or vertebroplasty. SRS can be a good treatment modality for those with limited life expectancies, or those undergoing other concurrent treatments. Spinal radiosurgery can be highly effective in controlling pain, such as in Case 1, with up to 100% of patients reporting relief in some series.3

Debate continues regarding the most appropriate treatment margins. Some centers radiate only tumor seen on MRI, while others recommend treating the entire affected vertebral body including pedicles. Up to 18% of local failures are due to recurrences in the pedicles.4 Amdur et al5 advocate treating visible tumor plus a 1-cm margin in bone or a 2-mm volume beyond the cortex. We typically treat only the volume of tumor seen on CT or MRI. There are no studies that clearly demonstrate a benefit of one approach over the other. Dose recommendations are variable, with single session prescriptions ranging from 8 to 24 Gy in the published literature.5 We use 16 to 25 Gy in one to three fractions, depending on tumor type. Local control is achieved in 77% to 100% of cases, and control rates are independent of histopathology (Table 49-4).

Treatment of Intradural Extramedullary Lesions

Most intradural extramedullary lesions are benign. Surgical resection is most commonly recommended since it provides immediate decompression, yields a tissue diagnosis, and is usually curative. Intracranial lesions of similar histology have been shown to respond well to SRS. SRS for these benign spinal lesions is appropriate for inaccessible tumors, syndromic lesions that are multiple, for patients with significant medical comorbidities, or for those who decline open surgery. In older patients, the risks associated with open surgery are greater, so SRS may be appropriate for most intradural extramedullary lesions in this population.

In our institution, we have treated 110 patients with 117 lesions6 (unpublished data). Fifty-six percent of schwannomas (see Case 1) and meningiomas have stabilized after SRS and 44% have regressed radiographically. Neurofibromas did less well, with 11% enlarging, and up to 80% of patients reporting progressive neurological deficits. We have observed that most myelopathies and radiculopathies improve after SRS treatment. Two of our SRS-treated patients required open resection for tumor enlargement. Three needed surgery for persistent or progressing symptoms. One patient developed a radiation-induced myelopathy.

Complications

SRS treatment failures can be categorized as “in-field failures” and “marginal failures.” “In-field failures” involve tumor regrowth within the treated volume and may be related to inadequate dosing. “Marginal failures” involve regrowth at the edges of the treated volume and may be related to poor imaging, an underestimation of the tumor volume, or inaccuracies in the position or set-up. “Distant failures,” which involve new lesions in untreated portions of the spine, occur in 5% of patients, and are due to the underlying disease and not to a failure of technique.

Neurological complications of SRS are categorized by their time of onset. Acute complications occur within a month and are usually transient. They are related to edema and can be treated with steroids. Subacute complications occur 3 to 6 months after treatment and are usually secondary to demyelination. The prognosis for recovery is good. Radiation-induced myelopathy, the most feared side effect of SRS, is a late effect, occurs after 6 months, and is usually irreversible. In 1000 patients treated with CyberKnife for spinal lesions, six developed myelopathy (0.6%).10 To prevent radiation-induced myelopathy, we avoid exposing more than one cubic centimeter of spinal cord to more than 8 Gy in single session plans.

Other less severe side effects of spinal SRS include local skin reactions, which are occasionally seen when the posterior elements are treated, and gastrointestinal complaints such as nausea, pharyngitis, esophagitis, or diarrhea. Renal complications are rare even after thoracolumbar treatments.

References

1. Henderson F.C., McCool K., Seigle J., Jean W., Harter W., Gagnon G.J. Treatment of chordomas with CyberKnife: Georgetown University experience and treatment recommendations. Neurosurgery. 2009;64(Suppl. 2):A44-A53.

2. Ryu S., Fang Yin F., Rock J., Zhu J., Chu A., Kagan E., Rogers L., Ajlouni M., Rosenblum M., Kim J.H. Image-guided and intensity-modulated radiosurgery for patients with spinal metastasis. Cancer. 2003;97:2013-2018.

3. Gerszten P.C., Burton S.A., Welch W.C., Brufsky A.M., Lembersky B.C., Ozhasoglu C., Vogel W.J. Single-fraction radiosurgery for the treatment of spinal breast metastases. Cancer. 2005;104:2244-2254.

4. Chang E.L., Shiu A.S., Mendel E., Mathews L.A., Mahajan A., Allen P.K., Weinberg J.S., Brown B.W., Wang X.S., Woo S.Y., Cleeland C., Maor M.H., Rhines L.D. Phase I/II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis and its pattern of failure. J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2007;7:151-160.

5. Amdur R.J., Bennett J., Olivier K., Wallace A., Morris C.G., Liu C., Mendenhall W.M. A prospective phase II study demonstrating the potential value and limitation of radiosurgery for spine metastases. Am. J. Clin. Onc.. 2009;32:1-6.

6. Dodd R.L., Ryu M.R., Kamnerdsupaphon P., Gibbs I.C., Chang S.D., Adler J.R. CyberKnife radiosurgery for benign intradural extramedullary spinal tumors. Neurosurgery. 2006;58:674-685.

7. Ryu S.I., Kim D.H., Chang S.D. Stereotactic radiosurgery for hemangiomas and ependymomas of the spinal cord. Neurosurg. Focus. 2003;15(15(5)):E10.

8. Parikh S., Heron D.E. Fractionated radiosurgical management of intramedullary spinal cord metastasis: a case report and review of the literature. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg.. 2009;111:858-861.

9. Wowra B., Zausinger S., Drexler C., Kufeld M., Muacevic A., Staehler M., Tonn J.C. CyberKnife radiosurgery for malignant spinal tumors: characterization of well-suited patients. Spine. 2008;33:2929-2934.

10. Gibbs I.C., Patil C., Gerszten P.C., Adler J.R.Jr., Burton S.A. Delayed radiation-induced myelopathy after spinal radiosurgery. Neurosurgery. 2009;64:A67-A72.