Gamma Knife radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas: evaluation of tumor control and its predictors in a large patient cohort in The Netherlands

Abstract

OBJECT The authors of this study sought to assess tumor control and complication rates in a large cohort of patients who underwent Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) for vestibular schwannoma (VS) and to identify predictors of tumor control. METHODS The records of 420 patients treated with GKRS for VS with a median marginal dose of 11 Gy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with neurofibromatosis Type 2 or who had undergone treatment for VS previously were excluded. The authors assessed tumor control and complication rates with chart review and used the Cox proportional hazards model to identify predictors of tumor control. Preservation of serviceable hearing, defined as Gardner-Robertson Class I-II, was evaluated in a subgroup of 71 patients with serviceable hearing at baseline and with available follow-up audiograms. RESULTS The median VS tumor volume was 1.4 cm(3), and the median length of follow-up was 5.1 years. Actuarial 5-and 10-year tumor control rates were 91.3% and 84.8%, respectively. Only tumor volume was a statistically significant predictor of tumor control rate. The tumor control rate decreased from 94.1% for tumors smaller than 0.5 cm(3) to 80.7% for tumors larger than 6 cm(3). Thirteen patients (3.1%) had new or increased permanent trigeminal nerve neuropathy, 4 (1.0%) had new or increased permanent facial weakness, and 5 (1.2%) exhibited new or increased hydrocephalus requiring a shunting procedure. Actuarial 3-year and 5-year hearing preservation rates were 65% and 42%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The 5-year actuarial tumor control rate of 91.3% in this cohort of patients with VS compared slightly unfavorably with the rates reported in other large studies, but the complication and hearing preservation rates in this study were similar to those reported previously. Various factors may contribute to the observed differences in reported outcomes. These factors include variations in treatment indication and in the definition of treatment failure, as well as a lack of standardization of terminology and of evaluation of complications. Last, differences in dosimetric variables may also be an explanatory factor.