CNS
2026-11-07
Manual to automated (HyperArc) VMAT SRS transition
ForBrain metastases treated with single-isocenter linac SRS, no PTV margin
TL;DRPaddick GI 5.42 vs 7.09 (P<.001), time in room 10.5 vs 11.4 min, RTOG CI unchanged; HyperArc 1-yr LC 90.1% across 377 mets.
The gradient advantage is not just more arcs: at 2 table angles Paddick GI was 3.68 vs 4.67 (P<.001), and conformity was unchanged. Zero-margin single-isocenter multitarget delivery still gave 1-yr LC 90.1%, which supports keeping PTV=GTV when localization and intrafraction motion are tightly managed.
For multiple brain mets planned single-isocenter with PTV=GTV, this supports automated HyperArc as plan-quality parity with an expert manual VMAT program; it does not address targets far from isocenter, benign or vascular indications, or late radionecrosis. The longer read
Gradient improvement persists at matched table-angle counts (Paddick GI 3.68 vs 4.67 at 2 angles), so it reflects the optimizer, not arc number alone. Zero-margin single-isocenter delivery with 1-yr LC 90.1% supports PTV=GTV under tight IGRT, though off-isocenter rotational error remains unaddressed.
12 details 2 trials watching
Single-institution retrospective comparison of 693 single-isocenter VMAT SRS plans: HyperArc (23-pt pilot + 350 pts) vs 320 consecutive prior mVMAT pts as historical control. Clinical outcomes evaluated only in the HyperArc cohort.
Plan cohort mixed metastatic and benign/vascular targets; 59.9% single-target, 12.0% with 6 to 22 targets. Clinical cohort: 107 pts with 377 brain mets, median age 58, mostly NSCLC, breast and melanoma.
No margin on GTV. 18-20 Gy in 1 fx, or 30 Gy/5 fx when any target exceeded 2-3 cm or involved deep structures. 10 MV FFF, HD120 MLC, CBCT with 6DOF correction.
Per-target conformity, gradient and falloff indices, mean brain dose, film PSQA against TG-218, planning and delivery times. Clinical: lesion-level LC (no 25% diameter increase) and grade 3+ CTCAE v5 toxicity.
Conformity equivalent; gradient and falloff favor HyperArc; mean brain dose 4.6% vs 5.1%. 1-yr LC 90.1%, 3 grade 3 seizures, no grade 4/5.
| Metric | HyperArc | mVMAT | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| RTOG conformity index | 1.14 | 1.13 | .322 |
| Paddick conformity index | 0.86 | 0.87 | .048 |
| Paddick gradient index | 5.42 | 7.09 | <.001 |
| Falloff index | 6.25 | 8.09 | <.001 |
| Mean brain dose | 4.6% | 5.1% | .04 |
| Median no. of arcs | 3 | 2 | <.001 |
| TG-218 tolerance (gamma ≥95%, 3%/2 mm) | 97% | 94% | .024 |
| TG-218 action limit (gamma ≥90%) | 100% | 98% | .072 |
| Planning time | 77 min | 72 min | .61 |
| Time in room | 10.5 min | 11.4 min | <.001 |
Builds on the Clark 2012 class solution and the Thomas 2014 low-dose-spill penalty that matched Gamma Knife plans. Here the automated tool reaches that expert-solution level without nested tuning structures.
Software version differs between eras (Eclipse 15.5 vs 13.6). Planning time measured from structure-set timestamps as a surrogate. LC depends on 47 tumors at risk at 1 year.
The case for automation is standardization, not a dosimetric leap: an expert manual program already sits near the ceiling. What remains unsettled is rotational-error underdosing of off-isocenter targets with zero margin, and which plan-quality metric actually tracks clinical outcome.
Retrospective historical-control dosimetric comparison; clinical outcomes single-arm HyperArc only with 5-mo median imaging f/u and toxicity scored by chart review.
- Underdosing of off-isocenter targets from rotational error with zero margin recruiting Trial of Differential Margins in Single Isocenter Radiosurgery of Brain Metastases Phase NAn=180 · primary completion 2028-06 · randomized 0mm vs 2mm margin, single-isocenter SRSn=166 · primary completion 2028-08 · randomized PTV margin omission, PFS endpoint
- Which plan-quality metric predicts LC and radionecrosis
- Durability of LC and late toxicity beyond 1 year
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Dose-adapted single-isocenter SRS for 4 to 10 brain mets (prospective) NCT02886572
For4-10 untreated brain mets, KPS ≥70, excluding SCLC, lymphoma, germ-cell, LMD
TL;DRmOS 8.1 mo, 1-yr OS 35.7%; 22/40 outlived DS-GPA prediction (≥17 needed for non-inferiority), 1-yr local failure 5%, no G3-5 toxicity.
The transferable piece is the dose-adaptation rule: switching every lesion to 5 Gy x5 when V12Gy exceeds 20 mL or a brainstem lesion is present gave 98% per-lesion LC with 1.3% necrosis, at aggregate PTV up to 32 mL. That supports hypofractionating the whole plan in high-volume cases instead of de-escalating single-fraction dose.
For a KPS ≥70 pt with 4 to 10 non-SCLC brain mets and aggregate volume pushing single-fraction V12Gy past 20 mL, this supports a single-isocenter 5 Gy x5 plan as a feasible SRS option; it does not address SCLC, leptomeningeal disease, or more than 10 lesions. The longer read
The transferable piece is the dose-adaptation rule: switching every lesion to 5 Gy x5 when V12Gy exceeds 20 mL or a brainstem lesion is present gave 98% per-lesion LC with 1.3% necrosis, at aggregate PTV up to 32 mL. That supports hypofractionating the whole plan in high-volume cases instead of de-escalating single-fraction dose.
14 details 4 trials watching
Prospective single-arm trial, N=40, enrolled Feb 2017 to Aug 2019, registered NCT02886572. Median follow-up 15.2 mo. Funded by Varian Medical Systems.
4 to 10 untreated brain mets, age ≥18, KPS ≥70, life expectancy >3 mo, DS-GPA ≥0.5, largest lesion ≤4 cm, >2 mm from optic apparatus; brainstem lesions allowed. Excluded SCLC, germ-cell, lymphoma, leukemia, myeloma, leptomeningeal disease. Median age 61, KPS 90, 6 mets; NSCLC 50%, breast 27.5%; 11 had prior SRS/WBRT.
Single-isocenter VMAT, 1 mm PTV margin. 20 Gy for PTV <2 cm, 18 Gy for 2.0 to <3.0 cm; 5 Gy x5 to all lesions if any PTV >3 cm, any brainstem lesion, or brain V12Gy >20 mL. 24 pts (125 lesions) got 1 fraction, 16 pts (79 lesions) got 5; median beam-on 8 min.
Primary: OS, judged non-inferior if ≥17 of 40 pts outlived DS-GPA-predicted survival. Secondary: local recurrence, distant brain recurrence, neurologic death, AEs, QOL, steroid use.
22 pts outlived prediction; mOS 8.1 mo, 1-yr OS 35.7%. 1-yr local failure 5% (10 of 204 lesions); distant brain recurrence 35.8% at 12 mo. Neurologic death 20% of deaths.
| Endpoint | Single fraction | 5 fractions |
|---|---|---|
| Local failure, lesions | 8 of 119 (no dose adjustment) | 2 of 79 |
| Local control | 93% | 98% |
| Radionecrosis per lesion | 3.4% (4 of 119) | 1.3% (1 of 79) |
AEs in 73%, all G1-2, mostly headache and fatigue; no G3-5 treatment-related AEs. Radionecrosis in 5 lesions in 4 pts; 2 pts needed surgery. MMSE, Trail Making, HVLT and FACT-Br unchanged at 3 mo.
mOS of 8.1 mo sits inside the range of prior multi-met SRS series summarized in the paper's Table 4 (medians 5.8 to 14.1 mo), most of them retrospective. The randomized SRS vs WBRT trials for 4 to 20 mets (NCT03550391, NCT03075072, NCT01592968) are the comparators this cannot replace.
The DS-GPA benchmark uses the original formulation, measures from first brain-met diagnosis, and was applied here from protocol SRS in a cohort where 11 had prior brain RT. LC and DBF exclude the 8 pts who died before first MRI, and the paper's own Discussion gives a 6-mo distant failure figure (58%) that conflicts with its Results (20%).
The OS endpoint mostly shows the technique does not shorten life against a prognostic index; it cannot show SRS beats WBRT. The more usable signal is the per-lesion one: 5-fraction plans held 98% LC with low necrosis despite larger volumes, which supports hypofractionating high-volume multi-met plans.
Single-arm, N=40, single institution; OS benchmarked against a DS-GPA prediction, not a randomized WBRT or multi-isocenter comparator. Too few events for LC or necrosis modeling.
- SRS vs WBRT for 4 to 15 brain mets: survival and neurocognition n=126 · primary completion 2026-12 · SRS alone vs SRS+WBRT, 5 to 30 mets, prospectiven=90 · primary completion 2029-04 · SRS vs HA-WBRT vs CS-WBRT, ≥6 mets, 6-mo cognition
- Single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS for high aggregate volume intact mets active Comparing Single vs Multiple Dose Radiation for Cancer Patients With Brain Metastasis and Receiving Immunotherapy Phase NAn=58 · primary completion 2028-03 · SSRS vs FSRS for mets ≥2 cm or ≥4 cc on ICIn=504 · primary completion 2030-01 · randomised 3x10 Gy SRT vs single-dose SRS, ≤5 BM
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Interinstitutional plan quality: Elements MME vs RapidArc single-isocenter SRS
For4-10 brain metastases, single-isocenter linac SRS, single fraction
TL;DRRapidArc lowered median V12Gy 19.2 vs 23.7 cc (P<.0001) and improved conformity; MME lowered V5Gy and mean brain dose (2.57 vs 2.76 Gy).
The platforms trade dose bands rather than one beating the other. RA lowers the V12Gy/V8Gy band tied to radionecrosis, while MME lowers dose below roughly 6 Gy. The V12 advantage holds only above 2.1 cc total PTV (ratio mean 1.24); below that, MME matched or beat RA on V12 in 4 of 6 cases.
For a pt with 4-10 brain mets and total PTV above 2.1 cc, this favors single-isocenter VMAT for lower V12Gy. With very small total PTV, MME matched or beat RA on V12 in 4 of 6 cases. Low-dose spill differences have no outcome correlation yet. The longer read
The platforms trade dose bands rather than one beating the other. RA lowers the V12Gy/V8Gy band tied to radionecrosis, while MME lowers dose below roughly 6 Gy. The V12 advantage holds only above 2.1 cc total PTV (ratio mean 1.24); below that, MME matched or beat RA on V12 in 4 of 6 cases.
16 details 3 trials watching
Paired dosimetric replanning study at 2 institutions (TJU, UAB). 15 previously treated pts from each site were replanned by the other site with its own technique. Comparison by paired 2-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank, prespecified α .05.
30 pts with 4 to 10 brain metastases, 217 targets, median 7.5 per case. Individual target volume 0.014 to 17.73 cm3; total PTV 0.49 to 27.32 cm3, median 7.05 cm3.
14 to 24 Gy single fraction, prescriptions unchanged between plans and largely RTOG 9508-based. RA used 2 to 4 noncoplanar VMAT arcs at 10 MV FFF with 3 ring tuning structures. MME used automated noncoplanar DCAs at 6 MV FFF with up to 1 mm MLC margin and island-blocking avoidance.
Per target: RTOG CI, Paddick CI, coverage. Per plan: V12Gy, V8Gy, V5Gy, mean brain dose, plus arc, MU, and beam-on estimates.
RA favored conformity and the V12Gy/V8Gy band; MME favored V5Gy and Dmean. The brain DVHs cross near 6 Gy, and below 2.1 cc total PTV MME was favorable on most metrics.
| Metric | MME (DCA) | RA (VMAT) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| RTOG CI (per target) | 1.38 | 1.23 (abstract: 1.21) | <.0001 |
| Paddick CI (per target) | 0.70 | 0.77 | <.0001 |
| V12Gy (cc) | 23.7 | 19.2 | <.0001 |
| V8Gy (cc) | 53.6 | 44.1 | .024 |
| V5Gy (cc) | 141.4 | 142.8 | .009 |
| Mean brain dose (Gy) | 2.57 | 2.76 | <.0001 |
| Mean target coverage | 97.5% | 96.9% | .007 |
Gevaert et al (10 cases, 40 mets) found higher V12Gy and V5Gy for RA. Its Paddick CI of 0.65 ± 0.08 (MME) and 0.67 ± 0.16 (RA) sits below this study's 0.70 and 0.77, which the authors read as plans that were not fully optimized. Narayanasamy et al (8 pts, 40 targets) found the platforms comparable but was likely underpowered.
Different beam energies and dose algorithms (pencil beam vs AAA) per platform, so platform effects cannot be cleanly separated from energy and algorithm. Each platform had one expert institution, so planner skill is part of the RA result. Hotspots and homogeneity were not compared, and text and Table 1 medians disagree for V12.
Both platforms met clinical goals, and the differences are small and dose-band specific. Moderate isodose spill has retrospective links to radionecrosis, while low-dose spill has no toxicity correlation yet. It may matter more as pts survive to repeat SRS or WBRT.
Dosimetric planning study with no clinical endpoints; 6 vs 10 MV energy and two dose algorithms confound the platform comparison. Platform and planner effects not separable.
- Does low-dose brain spill predict cognitive decline after repeat SRS? n=80 · primary completion 2026-06 · prospective neurocognitive testing mapped after SRSn=110 · primary completion 2026-12 · MRI biomarkers of NCF decline after SRS vs WBRTn=90 · primary completion 2028-12 · cognitive-sparing SRS of parcellated critical regions
- Does HyperArc or newer Elements shift the dosimetric tradeoff?
- How does non-expert VMAT planning compare with automated MME?
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Automated single-isocenter SRS for multiple brain mets: outcomes and margins
For4-10 brain mets <3 cm, frameless linac SRS, lung/breast/melanoma-dominant
TL;DR1y LC 89% per pt and 94% per lesion. Residual setup error caused coverage loss (V95 <95%) in 28 targets; simulated 1 mm GTV-PTV margin restored coverage.
Coverage loss clustered in small lesions far from isocenter: about 90% of V95 <95% misses were lesions <0.4 cm3 at ≥3.9 cm. Uncorrected intrafraction drift cost GTV coverage in 28% of lesions, so the 1 mm margin depends on 6D monitoring with mid-treatment correction.
For a pt with 4-10 small brain mets on a frameless linac with 6D ExacTrac and mid-treatment re-imaging, this supports a 1 mm GTV-PTV margin over 0 mm; it does not address mask setups without intrafraction correction or cumulative volumes ≥15 cm3. The longer read
Coverage loss clustered in small lesions far from isocenter: about 90% of V95 <95% misses were lesions <0.4 cm3 at ≥3.9 cm. Uncorrected intrafraction drift cost GTV coverage in 28% of lesions, so the 1 mm margin depends on 6D monitoring with mid-treatment correction.
16 details 4 trials watching
Retrospective two-center series (Rome, Negrar), 31 consecutive pts, 204 BM. Outcomes by Kaplan-Meier from SRS; dosimetric accuracy from offline CBCT fused to planning CT with residual shifts applied.
Age ≥18, 4-10 BM <3 cm. Median age 60; lung 14, melanoma 8, breast 5. Concurrent systemic therapy in 9 pts (IO 4, targeted 5).
Single-isocenter DCA via Brainlab Elements, 10 noncoplanar arcs at 5 couch positions. 20-22 Gy for <2 cm, 16-18 Gy for ≥2 cm or near critical structures; PTV = GTV + 1 mm (176 lesions) or 2 mm (28).
1y/2y LC 89%/77% per pt, 94%/86% per lesion; mOS 16.1 mo. Coverage loss (V95 <95%) in 28 targets, driven by distance ≥39 mm (P=.0001) and volume <0.40 cm3 (P=.015).
| Endpoint | 1 yr | 2 yr |
|---|---|---|
| LC, per patient | 89% | 77% |
| LC, per lesion | 94% | 86% |
| OS | 68% | 40% |
| Distant brain failure | 38% | n/r |
| Factor | Lesions losing coverage | P |
|---|---|---|
| Distance <39 mm vs ≥39 mm | 7 vs 21 | .0001 |
| Volume <0.40 cm3 vs ≥0.40 cm3 | 20 vs 8 | .015 |
| Diameter | 0 mm | 1 mm | 2 mm | 3 mm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 cm | 0.07 cm3 | 0.18 cm3 | 0.38 cm3 | 0.7 cm3 |
| 1 cm | 0.52 cm3 | 0.9 cm3 | 1.43 cm3 | 2.21 cm3 |
| 1.5 cm | 1.76 cm3 | 2.57 cm3 | 3.59 cm3 | 4.85 cm3 |
| 2 cm | 4.18 cm3 | 5.57 cm3 | 7.23 cm3 | 9.2 cm3 |
No G3-4 toxicity. Necrosis in 5 (16.1%) pts, 11% per lesion at 12 mo, 2 with G2 motor deficit; individual V12Gy >10 cm3 predicted it (P=.01).
Roper et al showed coverage held at 0.5° simulated rotation but failed in over one-third of plans at 2°; here measured residuals stayed within 0.5 mm / 0.5° tolerance, which is why 1 mm sufficed. Necrosis tracking V12Gy matches the Korytko gamma knife series the authors cite.
The paper reports pt counts inconsistently (4-6/7-10 vs 4-7/8-10; 10 vs 12 pts with coverage loss). LC is not stratified by margin or by distance from isocenter, so the clinical consequence of the dosimetric miss is untested.
The case for 1 mm is a trade-off: the margin rescues small distal targets while Table 4 shows each added millimetre inflates a 1 cm lesion's volume steeply, feeding V12Gy. That trade-off only holds if intrafraction drift is caught and corrected.
Retrospective 31-pt series, median f/u 11 mo, no comparator arm; margin conclusion rests on dosimetric re-computation, not lesion-level clinical failure by margin.
- Lesion-level local failure by distance from isocenter and margin size recruiting Trial of Differential Margins in Single Isocenter Radiosurgery of Brain Metastases Phase NAn=180 · primary completion 2028-06 · randomizes 0 vs 2 mm margin in single-isocenter SRS
- Neurocognitive outcome with formal testing after single-isocenter SRS for 5-10 BM n=80 · primary completion 2026-06 · SRS for ≥6 BM, ph2 1° EP neurocognitive declinen=110 · primary completion 2026-12 · prospective SRS cohort, 1-10 lesions, serial NCF testingn=90 · primary completion 2029-04 · rand ph2 SRS vs CS-WBRT vs HA-WBRT, ≥6 BM, 6-mo cognition
- Is 1 mm sufficient without intrafraction monitoring and correction?
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
DCAT vs CoVMAT vs NcVMAT for single brain met
ForSingle brain met, 2-3 cm, LINAC SRS 20 Gy/1 fx
TL;DRNon-coplanar VMAT cut normal-brain V12Gy to 9.4 vs 11.6 (DCAT) vs 15.1 cm3 (coplanar VMAT) for 2-3 cm single brain mets, 20 Gy/1 fx.
The coplanar-only VMAT many centers default to was the worst plan for low and intermediate spill (V12Gy 15.1 cm3, V5Gy 96.8 cm3), not merely a wash vs DCAT. For 2-3 cm lesions, where necrosis risk rises, adding non-coplanar arcs is what earns VMAT its advantage, at the cost of longer beam-on time.
In a 2-3 cm single brain met planned for LINAC SRS, this supports non-coplanar over coplanar-only VMAT when normal-brain V12Gy is the constraint; it does not address multiple mets, single-isocenter multi-target plans, or fractionated SRT. The longer read
The coplanar-only VMAT many centers default to was the worst plan for low and intermediate spill (V12Gy 15.1 cm3, V5Gy 96.8 cm3), not merely a wash vs DCAT. For 2-3 cm lesions, where necrosis risk rises, adding non-coplanar arcs is what earns VMAT its advantage, at the cost of longer beam-on time.
10 details
Dosimetric planning study: three plans (DCAT, CoVMAT, NcVMAT) per pt for 15 pts treated April 2016 to October 2017, single institution. Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc for PTV/GTV indices; repeated-measures ANOVA with Holm for normal brain.
Single brain metastasis, longest diameter 2-3 cm, chosen because local control and radionecrosis are worse than for smaller lesions. Median PTV 6.4 cm3 (range 3.7-16.2).
20 Gy/1 fx to PTV (GTV + 1 mm), normalized to D99.5%, 6 MV on TrueBeam STx, AcurosXB. PTV D2% held near 142% of Rx across techniques so the comparison is at matched heterogeneity.
NcVMAT gave the best conformity (RTOG-CI and Paddick CI vs DCAT) and lowest normal-brain V20 to V5Gy vs both comparators. CoVMAT had the largest V15Gy through V5Gy and the fewest MU; both VMAT techniques ran longer beam-on than DCAT.
| Index | DCAT | CoVMAT | NcVMAT | DCAT vs CoVMAT p | DCAT vs NcVMAT p | CoVMAT vs NcVMAT p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V20Gy | 2.44 ± 1.78 | 2.48 ± 1.87 | 1.64 ± 1.13 | 0.88 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| V15Gy | 7.22 ± 4.08 | 8.52 ± 4.89 | 5.95 ± 3.10 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| V12Gy | 11.6 ± 6.5 | 15.1 ± 8.2 | 9.4 ± 4.9 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| V10Gy | 16.8 ± 9.0 | 22.7 ± 12.0 | 13.9 ± 6.8 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
| V5Gy | 49.2 ± 28.4 | 96.8 ± 55.4 | 42.9 ± 20.3 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Vogelbaum et al. showed higher local recurrence and radionecrosis for mets >2.0 cm, which is the population chosen here. Molinier et al. compared the same three techniques but across mixed intracranial targets and with different TPS and algorithms, which this study removes as a confounder.
V12Gy is a planning surrogate for necrosis; no clinical outcomes were measured. Plan quality for inverse-optimized techniques is operator- and optimizer-dependent, and DCAT plans used manual MLC shaping, so the margin between techniques may not transfer across centers.
The useful finding is that coplanar-only VMAT is not an adequate substitute for non-coplanar DCAT on low-dose spill, while non-coplanar VMAT beats both. The cost is beam-on time, relevant for intrafraction motion in frameless SRS.
Planning study in 15 pts; dosimetric V12Gy surrogate stands in for radionecrosis, with no clinical outcomes, single TPS and single institution.
- Does lower planned V12Gy with NcVMAT reduce clinical radionecrosis?
- Does the advantage hold for multiple mets or single-isocenter plans?
- Does longer beam-on time erode the gain in frameless SRS?
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
2026-11-06
Volume threshold of brain metastases for Linac-based SRS
For2-3 brain metastases, SRS candidates, GK vs linac VMAT planning
TL;DRIn a GK-vs-VMAT replanning study, GK beat VMAT on plan quality for targets ≤0.4 cc, while VMAT won for targets >0.4 cc.
HyperArc shrinks the GK advantage on small targets: for lesions ≤0.4 cc, NT V12Gy was 0.79 vs GK 0.70 (p=0.1923), while SmartArc was clearly worse at 1.25 (p=0.0019). The cutoff depends on the platform, and VMAT beam-on time was 8.33 to 13.58 min vs GK's 56.25.
For a pt with 2-3 brain mets where every target is >0.4 cc, this supports VMAT-based linac SRS as dosimetrically equal or better than GK with shorter beam-on time. It does not settle platform choice for sub-0.4 cc lesions or for >3 targets. The longer read
HyperArc shrinks the GK advantage on small targets: for lesions ≤0.4 cc, NT V12Gy was 0.79 vs GK 0.70 (p=0.1923), while SmartArc was clearly worse at 1.25 (p=0.0019). The cutoff depends on the platform, and VMAT beam-on time was 8.33 to 13.58 min vs GK's 56.25.
12 details
Retrospective treatment-planning comparison at one institution. 26 pts, 76 lesions, each GK plan replanned with SmartArc and HyperArc. ROC analysis on RTOG CI and NT V12Gy set the threshold volumes.
Pts treated with GK SRS for brain metastases in 2018-2019 who had two or three targets (26 selected from 121). Targets with a prescription below 12 Gy were excluded from the V12Gy analysis.
Linac plans used HD-120 MLC with FFF beams, with one or two isocenters per pt. Example prescriptions ranged from 13 Gy to 24 Gy single fraction.
The ROC thresholds were 0.4 cc for SmartArc (CI and V12Gy), 0.2 cc for HyperArc CI and 0.5 cc for HyperArc V12Gy. Averaged, they give the proposed 0.4 cc cutoff: GK is favored at or below it and VMAT above it. Median beam-on time was 56.25 min for GK vs 8.33 and 13.58 min for VMAT.
| Plan · metric | Threshold | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SmartArc · RTOG CI | 0.4 cc | 81.8% | 87.8% | 85.9% |
| HyperArc · RTOG CI | 0.2 cc | 100.0% | 79.7% | 81.7% |
| SmartArc · NT V12Gy | 0.4 cc | 79.2% | 94.4% | 88.3% |
| HyperArc · NT V12Gy | 0.5 cc | 89.5% | 82.9% | 85.0% |
| Metric | GK | SmartArc (p) | HyperArc (p) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≤0.4 cc · RTOG CI | 1.68 | 1.85 (0.0013) | 1.46 (0.032) |
| ≤0.4 cc · NT V12Gy (cc) | 0.70 | 1.25 (0.0019) | 0.79 (0.1923) |
| ≤0.4 cc · GI | 3.75 | 6.62 (0.0041) | 4.96 (0.0284) |
| ≤0.4 cc · V4.5Gy (cc) | 2.58 | 6.82 (0.0050) | 6.26 (0.0065) |
| >0.4 cc · RTOG CI | 1.59 | 1.36 (<0.0001) | 1.23 (<0.0001) |
| >0.4 cc · GI | 3.19 | 3.30 (0.5297) | 3.30 (0.2969) |
| >0.4 cc · V4.5Gy (cc) | 17.55 | 16.04 (0.0152) | 13.52 (<0.0001) |
This is consistent with Liu et al, where VMAT matched or beat GK at a median volume of 0.5 cc. Potrebko et al and Vergalasova et al split targets by mean volume or diameter bins and planned more targets per pt (median eight and seven), so their cutoffs are not directly comparable.
The cutoff is an average of four ROC thresholds, not tested in a validation set. For ≤0.4 cc, Table 4 shows HyperArc CI 1.46 vs GK 1.68 (p=0.032), which conflicts with the text's 'comparable conformity'. Closely adjacent targets were dropped, and these are exactly the cases where MLC dose bridging matters most.
The useful signal is that the threshold depends on the platform: HyperArc stays competitive with GK on small-target V12Gy where SmartArc does not. No clinical endpoint links these dosimetric differences to radionecrosis or local control.
Single-institution retrospective replanning with dosimetric surrogates only. The threshold is an unvalidated average of ROC cutoffs, with no clinical toxicity or control endpoint.
- Do sub-0.4 cc dosimetric differences translate into radionecrosis or local control differences?
- Does the threshold hold with more than three targets per patient?
- Is the averaged 0.4 cc cutoff reproducible in an independent validation cohort?
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
2026-10-04 ASTRO Annual Meeting 2026
TRIDENT NCT04471844
ForndGBM (WHO 2016), post maximal safe resection or biopsy, pre-RT/TMZ
HR 0.953
95% CI 0.82-1.10, p=0.52; mOS 17.7 vs 17.5 m, not met
TL;DRNo OS gain starting TTFields with RT/TMZ vs at maintenance TMZ in ndGBM: mOS 17.7 vs 17.5 m, HR 0.953, p=0.52.
The RT read is toxicity without payoff: wearing TTFields through RT/TMZ raised device-related AEs to 76.2% vs 59.2% (mostly grade 1-2 skin) with no OS, PFS or ORR difference. RT dose, fractionation and array handling during RT are not reported in source, so the trial gives no reason to build arrays into the chemoRT course.
In ndGBM pts about to begin RT/TMZ after maximal safe resection or biopsy, this does not support moving TTFields start forward from maintenance TMZ; it does not extend to selecting MGMT-methylated pts for early start, which rests on a post hoc subset. The longer read
Wearing TTFields through RT/TMZ raised device-related AEs to 76.2% vs 59.2% (mostly grade 1-2 skin) with no OS, PFS or ORR difference. RT dose, fractionation and array handling during RT are not reported in source, so nothing here argues for building arrays into the chemoRT course.
Sequencing stays as is: TTFields with adjuvant TMZ gave mOS 17.5 m vs 17.7 m with early start (HR 0.953, p=0.52). The MGMT-methylated signal (HR 0.683, p=0.03) comes from a post hoc per-protocol-usage subset with no n reported, so MGMT status is not yet a selector for earlier start.
7 details
Randomized, open-label, global phase 3, 1:1, randomized before RT/TMZ. N=981, accrued Dec 2020 to Jan 2024. Stratified by MGMT promoter methylation status and extent of resection.
Adults with ndGBM (WHO 2016 classification), recovered from maximal safe resection (biopsy allowed), KPS threshold 70 (inequality sign not rendered in source), RT/TMZ planned <8 weeks after surgery. Median age 60 (22-86), 65.1% male, 38.9% MGMT methylated, 5.4% IDH mutant.
TTFields (200 kHz) started concurrently with RT/TMZ (Early Start, n=492) or with adjuvant TMZ (Maintenance Start, n=489). TTFields recommended until second disease progression in both arms. Median device use 7.7 m vs 6.1 m.
RT with TMZ in both arms. Dose, fractionation, target volume and array management during RT are not reported in source.
Primary: overall survival. Secondary: PFS, 1-, 2- and 3-year survival rate, ORR, safety. Kaplan-Meier with stratified log-rank test.
Primary not met in ITT (see table). PFS and ORR not different between arms, values not reported in source.
| Endpoint | Early Start (with RT/TMZ) | Maintenance Start (with adjuvant TMZ) | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| mOS (95% CI) | 17.7 m (16.0-18.8) | 17.5 m (15.9-19.0) | HR 0.953 (95% CI 0.82-1.10), p=0.52 |
| 1-year survival | 70.9% | 72.0% | NS |
| 2-year survival | 33.9% | 31.6% | NS |
| 3-year survival | 22.5% | 18.4% | NS |
| Device-related AEs | 76.2% | 59.2% | mostly grade 1-2 skin |
| Median TTFields duration (range) | 7.7 m (0-49) | 6.1 m (0-43) | not reported |
Device-related AEs 76.2% Early Start vs 59.2% Maintenance Start, mostly grade 1-2 skin-related. Grade 3+ rates and RT interruption not reported in source.
EF-14 established TTFields added to maintenance TMZ after chemoRT, which the source names as current standard and which is the control arm here. TRIDENT asks only whether starting earlier adds to that, and in ITT it does not.
The between-arm exposure contrast is small (median use 7.7 m vs 6.1 m) and ~25% never started maintenance, which dilutes a timing effect. The MGMT signal conditions on device usage after randomization, with no subgroup n, interaction test or ITT MGMT-methylated result in source.
A timing-null result, not a device-null one. The post hoc MGMT-methylated finding (HR 0.683, p=0.03) is a hypothesis for a prospective trial, and the abstract's "clinically meaningful" framing outruns a per-protocol-usage subset.
CONSORT flow
Randomized phase 3 with prespecified OS primary not met, so maintenance-start TTFields stands. MGMT-methylated benefit is post hoc in a per-protocol-usage subset, not grounds for change.
- Does early TTFields improve OS in MGMT-methylated ndGBM when tested prospectively?
- Scalp dose and RT interruption with arrays worn during RT/TMZ
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
NRG-CC009
ForSCLC brain mets, no cap on BM number (median 2, IQR 1-5)
HR 0.83
95% CI 0.53-1.28, p=0.39; Gray's test p=0.66, not met
TL;DRNeurocognitive failure no different for SRS vs HA-WBRT + memantine in SCLC brain mets (adjusted HR 0.83, p=0.39); OS 17.4 vs 8.6 mo favoring SRS.
The RT read is what SRS did not cost: adjusted intracranial failure, neurological death, and salvage therapy were no different from HA-WBRT + memantine, so omitting whole-brain coverage carried no measured CNS penalty. The neurocognitive advantage that justifies SRS in other histologies did not appear here (adjusted HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53-1.28).
In SCLC with a limited number of brain mets (trial median 2, IQR 1-5), this supports SRS as an alternative to HA-WBRT + memantine; pts with many BM were eligible (range up to 26) but sparsely represented, so the read is thinner there. The longer read
The RT read is what SRS did not cost: adjusted intracranial failure, neurological death, and salvage therapy were no different from HA-WBRT + memantine, so omitting whole-brain coverage carried no measured CNS penalty. The neurocognitive advantage seen in other histologies did not appear (adjusted HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53-1.28).
10 details 2 trials watching
Phase III, randomized 1:1, 151 pts assigned February 2021 to June 2026. Stratified by DS-GPA and number of BM. Median follow-up for surviving pts 9.5 months.
SCLC brain metastases, no upper limit on BM number (initially 10, later amended). Median BM 2 (range 1-26, IQR 1-5). Size and volume thresholds (5 mm from the hippocampi, 4 cm largest diameter, 30 cm total volume) print without inequality symbols in the portal text.
SRS vs HA-WBRT + memantine. Dose, fractionation, and SRS platform are not reported in source.
Primary: time to neurocognitive failure (HVLT-R, COWA, Trail Making), cumulative incidence with death without failure as a competing risk. Secondary: OS, intracranial progression, neurological death, salvage therapies, AEs. Powered at 85% for a 17% absolute reduction with 91 events.
Primary not met; OS favored SRS. Arm-level figures are in the table. CNS control endpoints and G3-5 treatment-related AEs showed no difference in adjusted analyses, with no effect sizes given.
| Endpoint | SRS | HA-WBRT + memantine | Effect (SRS arm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neurocognitive failure (1°) | per-arm rate not reported | per-arm rate not reported | adjusted HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.53-1.28), p=0.39 |
| Median OS | 17.4 mo | 8.6 mo | adjusted HR 0.60 (95% CI 0.39-0.91), p=0.016 |
Historical SRS vs WBRT trials excluded SCLC, which left WBRT as the default here. NRG CC001 set HA-WBRT + memantine as the neurocognitive-sparing WBRT standard, so this comparator is the strongest WBRT arm available. FIRE-SCLC supplied the retrospective case for first-line SRS that this trial tests prospectively.
The observed event count is not reported against the 91 events the design required. No per-arm neurocognitive failure rates, no data on systemic therapy or extracranial disease by arm, and no account of what drove the OS gap.
The trial failed its own hypothesis and still weakens the case for WBRT: without a neurocognitive or CNS-control advantage for whole-brain treatment, the argument for it rests on habit. The OS difference is hypothesis-generating, not a tested claim.
Randomised phase III against the WBRT standard: neurocognitive primary not met, but OS and CNS control did not favor WBRT. OS is secondary, f/u 9.5 mo.
- What drives the OS gap when intracranial failure and neurological death were no different?
- Does SRS hold up in SCLC with high BM number? active Stereotactic Radiation in Patients With Small Cell Lung Cancer and 1-10 Brain Metastases Phase NAn=100 · primary completion 2024-04 · SRS instead of WBRT in SCLC with 1-10 BMactive Hippocampal Sparing Whole Brain Radiation Versus Stereotactic Radiation in Patients With 5-20 Brain Metastases: A Phase III, Randomized Trial Phase NAn=196 · primary completion 2024-11 · randomised HA-WBRT vs SRS, 5-20 BM, any solid tumor
- SRS dose, fractionation, and surveillance schedule used
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
Alliance A071801 NCT04114981
For1-4 brain metastases, one lesion >2cm resected, postop cavity RT
87% vs 81%
1 year surgical bed control, fSRS vs SRS, p=0.046
TL;DR1 year surgical bed control 87% vs 81% (p=0.046) favoring fSRS over single-fraction SRS after brain met resection; mOS 29 vs 20 mo.
Intact metastases were also treated per arm, so the OS signal (median 29 vs 20 months, HR=0.69, p=0.035) reflects a fractionation strategy across all treated lesions, not only the cavity. fSRS did not lower grade 1+ radiation necrosis (14% vs 10%), so the case for fractionating rests on control, not safety.
In pts with 1 to 4 brain metastases after resection of a lesion >2cm, this supports fractionated over single-fraction cavity SRS; it does not address unresected-only disease, neoadjuvant SRS, or WBRT. The longer read
Intact metastases were also treated per arm, so the OS signal (median 29 vs 20 months, HR=0.69, p=0.035) reflects a fractionation strategy across all treated lesions, not only the cavity. fSRS did not lower grade 1+ radiation necrosis (14% vs 10%), so the case for fractionating rests on control, not safety.
10 details 3 trials watching
Phase III multi-institutional cooperative group randomized trial, 242 randomized between October 2019 and October 2022. Stratified by age (60 years cut), targeted therapy or immunotherapy use within 4 weeks after RT, and maximal resection cavity diameter (3cm cut). Median follow-up 48 months.
1 to 4 brain metastases with resection of one lesion >2cm. Baseline characteristics reported as well-balanced; median surgical cavity target volume 16.5 for fSRS and 14.8 for SRS (p=0.41, units printed as cm in source).
SRS: 12-20Gy by volume in 1 fraction. fSRS: 27Gy/3 for <30cc or 30Gy/5 for >30cc. Intact metastases received SRS or fSRS per assigned arm, so fractionation differed across all treated lesions, not only the cavity.
Primary: time to surgical bed failure. Secondary: local control of intact brain metastases, overall survival, radiation necrosis.
Primary endpoint met in favor of fSRS, with OS and intact-lesion control moving the same direction (see table). No HR or CI for the primary endpoint in source.
| Endpoint | fSRS | SRS | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical bed control, 1 year | 87% | 81% | p=0.046 |
| Failure of treated intact mets | 4% | 11% | p=0.063 |
| Median OS | 29 months | 20 months | HR=0.69, p=0.035 |
| Grade 1+ radiation necrosis | 14% | 10% | no significant difference |
| Grade 1+ cerebral edema | 8% | 9% | no significant difference |
No significant differences in adverse event rates between arms. Grade 1+ radiation necrosis 14% fSRS vs 10% SRS; grade 1+ cerebral edema 8% vs 9%. Symptomatic or higher-grade necrosis not broken out in source.
N107C set postoperative single-fraction SRS as a standard against WBRT, and the MD Anderson randomised trial of cavity SRS vs observation tied local failure to larger cavities. This trial tests fractionation as the answer to that size problem, a practice the source describes as often favored but lacking high-level comparison.
Abstract only: the time-to-event primary is reported as a 1 year rate with a p-value near threshold, with no HR, CI, or per-arm N. Cavity-size subgroup results, the split between 27Gy/3 and 30Gy/5, leptomeningeal failure, and cause of death are not reported.
The local-control gain is modest and the survival difference is larger than that gain alone would predict, which points at intact-lesion control, neurologic death, or chance in a secondary endpoint. Authors conclude fSRS should be considered a standard of care after resection of larger brain metastasis; the necrosis data do not add a safety argument.
Randomised cooperative-group phase III, primary endpoint met with 48-month median f/u. fSRS already often favored for large cavities per source; this supplies the missing high-level data.
- Does the fSRS benefit hold in cavities 3cm or smaller?
- Postoperative fSRS vs neoadjuvant SRS for resectable brain metastasis active Neoadjuvant vs. Intraoperative vs. Adjuvant Resection Cavity Radiotherapy of Brain Metastases Phase NAn=90 · primary completion 2027-05 · preop vs intraop vs postop RT for resected brain metsrecruiting Trial of Preoperative Radiosurgery Versus Postoperative Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Resectable Brain Metastases Phase NAn=200 · primary completion 2028-12 · 1-fx preop SRS vs 5-fx postop SRT; 12 mo LMD incidencenot yet Study Comparing Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Stereotactic Radiotherapy of Brain Metastases Phase NAn=68 · primary completion 2030-06 · neoadjuvant vs adjuvant SRT; local control at 6/12/24 mo
- What drives the OS difference: neurologic death or intact-lesion control?
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
2026-09-28 ASTRO Annual Meeting 2026
ROADS NCT04365374
ForNewly diagnosed brain met, index lesion 2.0-7.0 cm, indicated for resection
HR 0.06
95% CI 0.01-0.46, p=0.0070; median NR vs 17.4 mo
TL;DRTime-to-SBR HR 0.06 (0.01-0.46) for Cs-131 tiles vs post-op cavity SRT after brain met resection; 12-mo SBR 1.3% vs 15.4%.
The control was not a weak arm: 92.2% got multi-fraction cavity SRT (27 Gy/3 or 30 Gy/5) and 12-mo SBR was 15.4%, in line with published fractionated series. The SBR HR stayed 0.06 in per-protocol while OS did not hold (HR 0.73, p=0.2156), so the cavity-control decision moves, the survival claim does not. TBRT prescription dose is not in the source text.
In a pt with a newly diagnosed brain metastasis 2.0-7.0 cm indicated for resection, this supports intraoperative Cs-131 tile placement as an alternative to post-op cavity SRT for surgical bed control; it does not address unresected lesions, which received SRT in both arms. The longer read
The control was not a weak arm: 92.2% got multi-fraction cavity SRT (27 Gy/3 or 30 Gy/5) and 12-mo SBR was 15.4%, in line with published fractionated series. The SBR HR stayed 0.06 in per-protocol while OS did not hold (HR 0.73, p=0.2156). TBRT prescription dose is not in the source text.
Randomization was pre-operative, but tiles went in only after intra-operative pathologic confirmation: 11 randomized pts had ineligible pathology, including GBM cases that received no TBRT. Adjuvant radiation is completed at resection, against 17.8% of the SRT arm never receiving it. Median craniotomy stay was 3.0 vs 4.0 days (p=0.56).
Also covered May 30
11 details
Randomized, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 across 32 US centers; 240 consented, 230 randomized 1:1 pre-operatively (115 per arm). Efficacy in the pre-specified mITT population (103 R+TBRT, 101 R+SRT). Median follow-up 12.9 mo (IQR 5.9-22.8); data cut-off October 2025.
Newly diagnosed brain metastases indicated for resection, with one surgical index metastasis 2.0-7.0 cm. mITT required surgery, pathologically confirmed metastasis, and any follow-up information; 14 did not have surgery, 11 had ineligible pathology, 1 had no follow-up.
R+TBRT: collagen tiles each carrying four Cs-131 seeds implanted in the cavity at resection, with post-op CT for dosimetry; prescription dose not reported in source text. R+SRT: volume-dependent cavity SRT, 17-20 Gy/1, 27 Gy/3 or 30 Gy/5, planned 21±7 days from surgery, multi-fraction in 92.2%, median start 27.0 days (range 6-47). Non-index metastases received SRT in both arms.
Co-primary: time-to-SBR (death censored) and SB-RFS (SBR or death), with site-reported SBR centrally reviewed by two neuroradiologists. Secondary: OS, FACT-Br QoL, KPS, Barthel ADL, neurocognition, LMD, RN (site-reported). NI margin HR 1.26; fixed hierarchy from non-inferiority to superiority to OS.
Non-inferiority and then superiority were met for both co-primaries. Local control findings held across mITT, ITT and per-protocol populations; the OS difference did not hold in per-protocol.
Any AE in 83 pts (79.0%) with R+TBRT vs 67 (80.7%) with R+SRT, risk difference -1.7% (95% CI -13.2 to 9.8). ≥G3 TRAEs 20.0% vs 21.7%. 12-mo RN 5.3% vs 5.7% (HR 0.85, p=0.76). No differences in FACT-Br, KPS, Barthel ADL or neurocognition.
Post-op cavity SRT became standard on trials showing better surgical bed control than observation; Mahajan et al. reported 12-month freedom-from-SBR of 72% with single-fraction SRT vs 43% with observation. Multi-institutional fractionated series report 84-87%, and the ROADS control arm (12-mo SBR 15.4%) sits in that range, so tiles beat a contemporary comparator.
Central reviewers were not told the assignment, but seed susceptibility artifact on MRI may have revealed it, and RN was site-reported. The SB-RFS definition was corrected in May 2025 (death had been specified as a censoring event), creating two co-primaries. No granular systemic therapy data, so the OS mechanism cannot be examined.
The surgical bed control result is consistent across analysis populations and rests on few events (1 vs 12). The OS difference is unexplained by distant brain failure or LMD, did not persist in per-protocol, and the authors state it requires validation. How tiles compare with pre-operative SRT (NCT03741673, NCT05438212) is untested.
CONSORT flow
Randomized phase 3 beat contemporary fractionated SRT on both co-primaries, but 12.9-mo follow-up, 1 vs 12 SBR events, open-label, and 17.8% SRT non-completion hold it short of practice-changing.
- Does the OS difference replicate in an independent trial?
- TBRT vs pre-operative SRT for resected brain metastases
- Late radiation necrosis and cavity control beyond 12.9-mo median follow-up
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
2026-09-25
ROAM/EORTC-1308
ForNewly diagnosed WHO grade 2 atypical meningioma after Simpson I–III resection
HR 0.51
95% CI 0.27–0.97, p=0.0396
TL;DRAdjuvant IMRT 60 Gy/30 fx vs observation after complete resection of WHO grade 2 atypical meningioma: DFS HR 0.51 (0.27–0.97); 5-yr DFS 79.9% vs 64.3%.
The RT effect is probably understated: 12 of 78 assigned pts never started RT, and DFS counts out-of-field and new meningiomas that a 5–10 mm CTV was never aimed at. The planned patterns-of-failure analysis will decide whether dural margins can tighten under modern IGRT, which is the next dosimetric question once adjuvant RT is adopted.
For a newly diagnosed WHO grade 2 atypical meningioma after surgeon-assessed Simpson I–III resection, this supports adjuvant fractionated RT over observation when recurrence prevention is the priority; it does not address subtotal resection, NF2, multiple or radiation-induced meningiomas. The longer read
IMRT 60 Gy/30 fx to a 5–10 mm CTV halved the DFS hazard (HR 0.51) with no G3+ AEs among RT-related events and one G2 necrosis. The pending patterns-of-failure analysis decides whether dural margins can tighten.
Surgeon-assessed Simpson I–III resection without early postop MRI still left 30% recurrence under observation at 64 mo. GTR alone is not definitive for atypical meningioma; authors suggest observation mainly where re-resection is easy, such as convexity tumours.
10 details 1 trial watching
International open-label phase 3 RCT, 1:1, 58 hospitals in 11 countries, stratified UK vs non-UK. N=157 randomised from 990 screened; median follow-up 64 mo.
Age ≥16, newly diagnosed atypical meningioma after surgeon-assessed GTR (Simpson I–III), WHO PS ≤2, able to start RT within 12 weeks. Excluded NF2, multiple or radiation-induced meningiomas, optic nerve sheath tumours.
IMRT 60 Gy in 30 fx over 6 weeks, median 2.50 mo from surgery. CTV 5–10 mm isotropic from GTV plus 3–5 mm PTV, with prospective central plan review before treatment.
Primary: DFS, surgery to MRI-confirmed recurrence or death. Secondary: HRQoL, neurocognition (UK/Ireland), time to second-line treatment, OS, cost-effectiveness.
Early RT-related AEs in 30 (45%), all G1-2; late in 17 (26%). G2 or 3 RT-related SAEs 5 (8%), including one G2 radiation necrosis and one G2 optic neuritis; no treatment-related deaths.
Before this, evidence was retrospective series and two non-randomised phase 2 cohorts reporting 3-yr PFS 88.7% (60 Gy/30 fx) and 93.8% (54 Gy/30 fx). NRG BN003 asks the same randomised question and will be the replication test.
No central pathology review (5 pts would now be grade 3) and no mandated early postop MRI. HRQoL data fell to 38% at 5 years and neurocognition was UK/Ireland-only with ~45% missing by 24 mo, so the null QoL and cognitive findings are weak.
With 70% of observed pts recurrence-free at 5 years, the result supports offering RT rather than mandating it. Methylation class stratifies risk but did not erase the RT effect, so it cannot yet select who to observe.
| Endpoint | Radiotherapy (n=78) | Observation (n=79) | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meningioma recurrence | 11 (14%) | 24 (30%) | n/a |
| 5-yr DFS | 79.9% (67.6–87.9) | 64.3% (51.9–74.2) | Diff 15.6 pp (0.6–30.5) |
| DFS, ITT | n/a | n/a | HR 0.51 (0.27–0.97), p=0.0396 |
| DFS, as-treated | 10/66 (15%) recurred | 25/91 (27%) recurred | HR 0.54 (0.28–1.04), p=0.0642 |
| Deaths | 7 (9%) | 6 (8%) | 5-yr OS OR 0.91 (0.27–3.05) |
| Second-line treatment | 8 (10%) | 16 (20%) | n/a |
CONSORT flow
First randomised evidence and primary DFS met, but accrual closed at 41 of 46 planned events, CI upper bound 0.97, and recurrence was read locally without masking.
- Do patterns of failure support tighter dural margins?
- Can methylation class identify pts safe to observe? n=210 · primary completion 2026-03 · DNA methylation signature for recurrence after GTR
- Is adjuvant RT cost-effective vs active monitoring?
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
2026-09-20
Gamma Knife vs LINAC-based radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma (retrospective review)
ForVestibular schwannoma, mostly Koos II solid, intracanalicular or mixed
TL;DRLocal control 98.8%; no difference in new vertigo, gait disturbance or facial palsy with GKRS (n=36) vs LINAC (n=49) SRS for vestibular schwannoma.
The 98.8% local control is freedom from further VS-directed intervention; volumetric enlargement still occurred in 6/36 GKRS and 9/49 LINAC pts. The LINAC arm pools margin-free 12 Gy to the 80-99% IDL with post-May 2017 frameless 12 Gy plus a 5 mm PTV margin, era split unreported, so it cannot say which LINAC approach matches GK.
In small, mostly Koos II vestibular schwannoma, this supports GK or LINAC single-fraction SRS chosen by local availability when weighing new vertigo, gait disturbance or facial palsy; it does not inform hearing preservation, which the series did not report. The longer read
The 98.8% local control is freedom from further VS-directed intervention; volumetric enlargement still occurred in 6/36 GKRS and 9/49 LINAC pts. The LINAC arm pools margin-free 12 Gy to the 80-99% IDL with post-May 2017 frameless 12 Gy plus a 5 mm PTV margin, era split unreported, so it cannot say which LINAC approach matches GK.
9 details
Retrospective chart review across multiple sites of a single institution, VS treated 2008-2017; N=85 (36 GKRS, 49 LINAC). Platform set by provider preference, as GKRS and LINAC sit at different centers. Median follow-up 27 mo.
Vestibular schwannoma, 95.3% solid, intracanalicular (45.9%) or intra- plus extracanalicular (43.5%); Koos II majority with no Koos difference between cohorts (p=0.65). Pre-SRS symptoms were common: tinnitus 62.4%, gait disturbance 48.2%, vertigo 30.6%.
All single-fraction SRS. GKRS: 12.5 Gy to the 50% IDL, stereotactic head frame. LINAC: 12 Gy to the 80-99% IDL with no CTV/PTV margin, then from May 2017 frameless, 12 Gy to the 100% IDL with a 5 mm PTV margin by VMAT.
No primary endpoint stated in source. Outcomes were new tinnitus, vertigo, gait disturbance and facial palsy (HB grade 3 or higher) in pts free of each at baseline, plus volumetric MRI tumor control. Hearing not reported; trigeminal dysfunction excluded for inconsistent documentation.
Local control 98.8%, with 1/85 pts needing salvage (surgery, LINAC arm). No difference in direction of tumor size change (p=0.199).
| New symptom | GKRS | LINAC | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tinnitus | 1/13 (7.7%) | 1/19 (5.5%) | 0.0007 (MVA) |
| Vertigo | 1/28 (3.6%) | 2/31 (6.5%) | 0.785 |
| Gait disturbance | 4/18 (22.3%) | 4/26 (15.4%) | 1.000 |
| Facial palsy (HB ≥3) | 0/34 (0.0%) | 2/48 (4.2%) | 0.509 |
| Tumor outcome | GKRS (n=36) | LINAC (n=49) |
|---|---|---|
| Decreased or stable | 30/36 | 40/49 (81.6%) |
| Increased size | 6/36 (16.7%) | 9/49 (18.4%) |
| Salvage required | None | 1/49 (2.0%) |
Both new LINAC facial palsies resolved (2/2); none occurred after GKRS. New gait disturbance resolved in 3/4 GKRS and 2/4 LINAC pts, and the single new GKRS tinnitus persisted.
Authors position this against prior series reporting favorable local control with GKRS or LINAC individually, where direct symptom and QOL comparisons were lacking. The source names no randomized GK vs LINAC comparison; the authors call for prospective data.
The 'QOL' outcomes are chart-abstracted symptoms, with HB grade assigned by the reviewing author when not documented. Mean follow-up differs (24 vs 36 mo), and the tinnitus p=0.0007 on multivariable analysis rests on 1 event per arm. Methods and results disagree on pre-2017 LINAC immobilization.
Median follow-up of 27 mo sits inside the 3-year window in which the authors cite 20-30% pseudoprogression, so the enlargements in both arms are not yet resolved as benign. The data show no signal of platform-specific vestibular or facial harm; they do not show parity.
Retrospective, provider-preference allocation, N=85; symptom comparisons use difference tests on single-digit event counts, so the 'interchangeable' conclusion is not something this design can establish.
- Does hearing preservation differ between GK and LINAC SRS?
- Does a 5 mm PTV margin on frameless LINAC add cranial nerve toxicity?
- Tumor control beyond the 3-year pseudoprogression window
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
2026-07-13
EANO Consensus Statement on Radiation Necrosis
ForPost-cranial-RT pts with a new enhancing lesion, glioma or brain metastases
TL;DRDelphi consensus: 53/57 statements reached ≥80% agreement across 20 experts; perfusion MRI + amino acid PET preferred, bevacizumab for steroid-refractory RN.
The dose-volume numbers are the transferable part: V12Gy ~10 cm³ carrying 5-10% symptomatic necrosis in single-fraction SRS, and hypofractionated brain+target V20Gy (3fx) or V24Gy (5fx) <20 cm³ holding RN needing resection under 4%. That is a planning constraint, and it gates the single-session vs hypofractionated choice for larger or eloquent-region metastases.
For a patient 6-24 months out from SRS or cranial RT with a new enhancing lesion, this supports going to perfusion MRI plus amino acid PET before calling progression; it does not settle mixed lesions, where the panel still points to tissue. The longer read
The planning-relevant numbers: V12Gy ~10 cm³ carries 5-10% symptomatic necrosis after single-fraction SRS, while hypofractionated brain+target V20Gy (3fx) or V24Gy (5fx) <20 cm³ keeps RN requiring resection under 4%. Re-irradiation risk climbs to 25% above cumulative EQD2 130 Gy, which constrains repeat SRS for lesions over 2.0-3.0 cm.
Bevacizumab moves from rescue to a triggered step at steroid dependence >4 weeks or dexamethasone 8 mg/day, with four accepted dosing schemes and no evidence favouring one. The panel also flags added RN risk when SRS is combined with dual checkpoint blockade or antibody-drug conjugates, which bears on sequencing brain RT against systemic therapy.
Resection carries the lowest accepted agreement in the management table (80.0%) yet is positioned as giving diagnosis and definitive treatment in one step for accessible lesions. LITT reached 100% agreement as the option for treatment-resistant RN unsuitable for resection, which gives a documented pathway for the steroid-dependent or bevacizumab-cycling patient.
11 details 5 trials watching
Three-round Delphi. 57 statements drafted after literature review across epidemiology-pathophysiology (n=8), causes (n=10), imaging (n=10), histopathology (n=9), management (n=20), plus an exploratory research set of 8. Consensus prespecified at ≥80% agreement on a 5-point Likert scale.
The voting panel, not patients: 15 volunteers (2 radiation/clinical oncologists, 4 neuro-oncologists, 4 medical oncologists, 2 neurosurgeons, 1 neuropathologist, 1 neuroradiologist, 1 nuclear medicine physician), expanded by 5 more in round 1 (4 neuro-oncologists, 1 radiation/clinical oncologist) to 20 total. Clinically the scope is RN after RT for primary glial or metastatic brain tumors.
RN is called uncommon below EQD2 ~40 Gy (α/β 2 Gy), rising with dose per fraction, total dose and irradiated volume. V12Gy ~10 cm³ carries a 5-10% symptomatic necrosis risk after single-session SRS; for hypofractionated SRT, brain-plus-target V20Gy (3fx) or V24Gy (5fx) <20 cm³ associates with <10% any necrosis and <4% RN requiring resection. Re-irradiation risk stays under 10% at cumulative EQD2 100-110 Gy and reaches up to 25% above 130 Gy.
Consensus reached on 53 of 57 statements after three rounds. Diagnostic and management statements are tabulated separately in the details; the four that failed to reach 80% are not identified in the available text.
| Modality | Setting | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 contrast-enhanced MRI alone | WHO grade 3-4 glioma | 68% | 77% |
| T1 contrast-enhanced MRI alone | Brain metastases | 79% | 76% |
| DSC rCBV | Grade 3-4 glioma | 87-90% | 86-88% |
| DSC rCBV | Brain metastases (418 lesions) | 83% | 78% |
| MR spectroscopy Cho/NAA | Glioma (455 pts) | 88% | 86% |
| Amino acid PET | Brain metastases (~400 pts) | 82% | 84% |
The document's practical contribution is a decision sequence rather than a new treatment: advanced MRI first, amino acid PET to add confidence, tissue when doubt persists, and treatment triggered only by symptoms of >7 days with increasing severity. Its most consequential position is moving bevacizumab from rescue to an expected next step at a defined steroid threshold (dependence >4 weeks or dexamethasone 8 mg/day), which is a lower bar than many centres apply.
Agreement percentages measure how a self-selected 20-person European panel voted, and the panel skews neuro-oncology (8 of 20) over radiation oncology (3 of 20) for a complication defined by dose and volume. FET and F-DOPA availability is largely European, so the imaging algorithm's top tier is not reproducible in most centres worldwide. The 4 non-consensus statements are not enumerated in the accessible text, so the reader cannot see where the panel actually split.
Delphi expert-opinion document, no efficacy endpoint. Agreement measured against opinion, not outcomes; authors state absence of Level 1 evidence and call for randomised trials.
- Optimal bevacizumab dose, interval and duration for symptomatic RN n=408 · primary completion 2028-07 · phase 3 bevacizumab vs dexamethasone, 1L sCRNrecruiting Corticodependent or Corticoresistant Brain Radionecrosis After Radiotherapy for Brain Metastases Phase 3n=84 · primary completion 2028-08 · randomised bev vs placebo in steroid-refractory RN
- Single-session SRS vs hypofractionated SRT for RN risk active Comparing Single vs Multiple Dose Radiation for Cancer Patients With Brain Metastasis and Receiving Immunotherapy Phase NAn=58 · primary completion 2028-03 · single vs fractionated SRS toxicity on ICIn=54 · primary completion 2029-02 · staged SRS vs FSRT, 2-5 cm mets, safety endpointn=504 · primary completion 2030-01 · phase 3 3x10 Gy SRT vs 1x20-25 Gy SRS
- Predictors of bevacizumab response and recurrence rate after treatment
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
2026-07-07
EORTC 22033-26033/NCIC-CTG/TROG/MRC-CTU
ForClinical high-risk WHO grade 2 glioma, first-line, molecularly classified
No significant difference
PFS and OS both ns between RT and TMZ arms; effect size not reported in source
TL;DRMature phase III: RT (50.4Gy/28fx) vs dose-dense TMZ in high-risk WHO grade 2 LGG, no PFS or OS difference in any molecular subtype.
The RT-relevant read is what this does NOT license: single-modality TMZ never beat RT, so deferring 50.4Gy/28fx to spare late toxicity buys nothing on PFS or OS. IDH wild-type was the one split (OS 2.5 vs 4.7 yrs, HR 0.47 [0.27-0.82], P=.0068), post hoc and n=64, and those tumors now grade as GBM.
In molecularly classified high-risk WHO grade 2 glioma being planned for first-line therapy, this supports neither leading modality over the other and does not address the combined-modality RT plus alkylator approach that is standard for IDH-mutant astrocytoma. The longer read
50.4Gy in 28fx as sole therapy was not beaten by TMZ, so deferring RT to postpone late neurocognitive cost does not buy an outcome advantage. The trial says nothing about RT dose, target volume or the combined-modality regimen a high-risk grade 2 astrocytoma now receives, so it does not move the modern RT decision, only closes the omission argument.
Dose-dense TMZ 75 mg/m² 21/28d for up to 12 cycles as sole first-line therapy is equivalent, not superior, to RT, and the schedule was never tested against the combined-modality standard. The IDH wild-type OS advantage (2.5 vs 4.7 yrs, HR 0.47 [0.27-0.82]) is post hoc in n=64 tumors that now classify as GBM.
8 details 2 trials watching
Randomised phase III, four-group intergroup trial (EORTC/NCIC-CTG/TROG/MRC-CTU), N=478, comparing two single-modality first-line strategies. This is the mature analysis; a post hoc reclassification to 2021 WHO criteria was possible in 73% (351/478) with analyzable tissue.
Clinical high-risk WHO grade 2 low-grade glioma, treatment-naive. Post hoc molecular strata: IDHmt/1p19q non-codeleted astrocytoma n=178, IDHmt/1p19q codeleted oligodendroglioma n=109, IDH wild-type n=64.
Standard fractionation, 28 × 1.8 Gy (50.4 Gy), delivered as the entire assigned treatment. No concurrent or adjuvant systemic therapy in the RT arm, which is the gap between this trial and how grade 2 glioma is treated now.
Dose-dense temozolomide 75 mg/m² once daily, 21 of 28 days, up to 12 cycles, given as sole first-line therapy with RT withheld.
progression-free survival. Overall survival and differential response by molecular marker were the mature-analysis questions.
No significant difference in PFS or OS between arms, and the null held across every molecular subtype except IDH wild-type, where OS favored TMZ.
| Subtype (n) | RT | TMZ | HR |
|---|---|---|---|
| IDHmt astrocytoma, non-codel (n=178) | 6.6-6.7 yrs (either arm) | 6.6-6.7 yrs (either arm) | 0.67-1.44, P=.93 |
| IDHmt oligodendroglioma, 1p/19q codel (n=109) | 12.9 yrs (9.4-NR) | 14.9 yrs (10.1-NR) | 0.88 (0.52-1.49), P=.63 |
| IDH wild-type (n=64) | 2.5 yrs (1.8-3.3) | 4.7 yrs (2.2-7.2) | 0.47 (0.27-0.82), P=.0068 |
RTOG 9802 established RT followed by PCV as the high-risk grade 2 benchmark, and combined-modality therapy is now standard for IDH-mutant astrocytoma. EORTC 22033 tested neither arm of that question: it asked which single modality to lead with, and answered that it does not matter.
Molecular strata are post hoc in 73% of the enrolled population, so subtype comparisons carry both selection and multiplicity risk. The IDH wild-type finding rests on n=64, and under 2021 criteria those tumors would not be enrolled as grade 2 at all.
The durable contribution is prognostic rather than therapeutic: median OS of 12.9-14.9 years in codeleted oligodendroglioma against 6.6-6.7 years in IDH-mutant astrocytoma quantifies how far molecular class outweighs modality choice. The finding that pts ≥40 fared better than <40 undercuts the age-40 cutoff that still gates high-risk definitions.
Mature randomised phase III, endpoint negative in both arms and across molecular subtypes; the IDHwt survival difference is post hoc, n=64.
- Optimal sequencing of RT and alkylator in IDH-mutant astrocytoma
- Whether IDH inhibitors displace upfront RT in low-risk grade 2 glioma n=90 · primary completion 2027-10 · PROs: vorasidenib vs RT vs surveillance in grade 2 IDH-mutn=150 · primary completion 2031-11 · real-world vorasidenib, grade 2, no immediate RT need
- Late neurocognitive cost of combined-modality vs single-modality
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
2026-06-09
NRG Oncology RTOG 0539 NCT00895622
ForWHO grade 1-3 meningioma, newly diagnosed or recurrent, any resection extent
TL;DR10-yr PFS 85.2% observed low-risk, 72.2% intermediate-risk at 54 Gy, 42.5% high-risk at 60 Gy.
The transferable RT read is the target: 54 Gy/30 fx for intermediate-risk and 60 Gy/30 fx for high-risk, with grade 3+ RT-attributed toxicity 9.6% and 15.1%. Recurrent grade 1 salvaged with RT reached only 67.0% 10-yr OS, worse than upfront grade 2 post-GTR at 91.0%, which argues against deferring RT in a grade 1 you expect to recur.
In newly diagnosed WHO grade 2 meningioma after GTR, this supports upfront 54 Gy while NRG BN003 and ROAM read out; it does not speak to observation in that group, since no untreated grade 2 arm was enrolled. The longer read
The transferable parameters are 54 Gy/30 fx intermediate-risk and 60 Gy/30 fx high-risk, with grade 3+ RT-attributed toxicity of 9.6% and 15.1%. Recurrent grade 1 salvaged with RT reached only 67.0% 10-yr OS vs 91.0% for upfront grade 2 post-GTR, which argues against deferring RT in a grade 1 likely to recur.
Extent of resection carried more weight than histology: STR vs GTR gave PFS HR 2.58 (1.09-6.11) and OS HR 3.38 (1.28-8.91) on multivariable analysis. Even in observed low-risk grade 1 disease, 10-yr PFS was 88.0% after GTR vs 72.7% after STR, so a Simpson-grade decision at the first operation still shows at 10 years.
10 details 4 trials watching
Multi-arm prospective phase 2 trial (NCT00895622) of risk-adapted management, not randomised: each risk group followed its own assigned strategy. 244 consented, 165 eligible and treated per protocol. Original endpoint was 3-yr PFS, previously reported; this is the mature analysis with data cutoff 8/15/2023 and median follow-up 12.1, 12.0 and 11.1 years across the three cohorts.
Adults ≥18 with Zubrod 0-1 and histologically confirmed unifocal WHO grade 1-3 meningioma, newly diagnosed or recurrent, any resection extent, with centrally confirmed pathology. Median age 56, 62 in the high-risk group; 65.5% female overall. Recurrent disease made up 30.8% of the intermediate and 47.2% of the high-risk cohorts.
Group 1 (grade 1 post-GTR/STR) was observed only. Group 2 (recurrent grade 1, or newly diagnosed grade 2 post-GTR) received 54 Gy in 30 fractions. Group 3 (newly diagnosed grade 2 post-STR, newly diagnosed grade 3, or recurrent grade 2/3) received 60 Gy in 30 fractions.
The gradient tracks risk assignment cleanly at 10 years, and the two Cox covariates that survive adjustment are recurrent disease and subtotal resection, both for PFS and OS. See the cohort and covariate tables above.
| Cohort | Management | 10-yr PFS | 10-yr OS | 10-yr cum. incidence progression |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low (grp 1, n=60) | Observation | 85.2% (75.7-94.8) | 94.1% (87.6-100) | 8.9% (3.2-18.2) |
| Intermediate (grp 2, n=52) | RT 54 Gy | 72.2% (59.2-85.1) | 84.7% (74.2-95.2) | 21.2% (10.8-33.9) |
| High (grp 3, n=53) | RT 60 Gy | 42.5% (28.7-56.3) | 51.1% (37.0-65.2) | 39.3% (25.8-52.5) |
| Covariate | PFS HR (95% CI), p | OS HR (95% CI), p |
|---|---|---|
| Recurrent vs initial | 2.5 (1.01-6.18), p=0.047 | 2.86 (1.06-7.70), p=0.038 |
| STR vs GTR | 2.58 (1.09-6.11), p=0.031 | 3.38 (1.28-8.91), p=0.014 |
Grade 3+ AEs attributed to radiotherapy occurred in 5 pts (9.6%) of the intermediate-risk and 8 pts (15.1%) of the high-risk cohorts. Newly reported late events in the intermediate group were auditory and neurologic grade 3 plus one grade 4 hemorrhage. Zubrod, MMSE and neurologic function score were stable over time.
This is the mature counterpart to the trial's own 3-yr landmark reports and now sits as the benchmark alongside the ongoing de-escalation questions in NRG BN003 (NCT03180268) and ROAM/EORTC 1308, both of which test whether grade 2 post-GTR needs RT at all. Until those read out, the 10-yr PFS 72.2% and OS 84.7% here are the reference numbers for treating that group.
Pathology was graded under the WHO criteria of the enrolment era, so some group 1 tumors would likely be reclassified today, which is the trial's own proposed explanation for the poor recurrent grade 1 outcomes. Subgroup estimates rest on very small denominators, with intervals such as 15.0% (0-42.0%) for recurrent grade 2 PFS that cannot support a practice decision on their own.
The trial settles the low-risk question (observe after GTR, 10-yr PFS 88.0%) and confirms that high-risk disease is not controlled by 60 Gy, with 10-yr PFS 42.5%. What it cannot settle is whether the intermediate-risk result reflects RT or favorable biology, since no group 2 patient went untreated.
Non-randomised risk-adapted phase 2 with mature 10+ yr follow-up; supports existing consensus (observe post-GTR grade 1, RT otherwise) rather than testing it against a control.
- Does grade 2 meningioma post-GTR need adjuvant RT at all recruiting Observation or Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Newly Diagnosed Grade II Meningioma That Has Been Completely Removed by Surgery Phase 3n=163 · primary completion 2027-06 · randomised RT vs observation, GTR grade II
- Whether molecular classification reassigns recurrent grade 1 tumors n=210 · primary completion 2026-03 · methylation + histone PTM signature for recurrence
- How to improve first-line treatment for high-risk meningioma recruiting Vismodegib, FAK Inhibitor GSK2256098, Capivasertib, and Abemaciclib in Treating Patients With Progressive Meningiomas Phase 2n=124 · primary completion 2027-01 · mutation-matched targeted arms, progressive tumorsactive A Trial of Increased Dose Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) for High-Grade Meningiomas Phase NAn=21 · primary completion 2027-08 · dose-escalated IMPT, STR grade II / grade III
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
FIRESTORM
ForHigh-risk meningioma (WHO gr 2 post-STR, recurrent gr 2, any gr 3), postop RT
HR 0.40
95% CI 0.24-0.69, P = .001 (MVA); IPTW HR 0.45 (0.24-0.83)
TL;DR5-yr PFS 65.8% vs 38.8% with dose-escalated postop RT (BED ≥79.2 Gy) in high-risk meningioma; MVA HR 0.40.
The benefit survives the obvious confounders: excluding the 35 single-fraction SRS cases from SD-RT, DE-RT still gave 5-yr PFS 65.8% vs 41.7% (HR 0.56, 0.36-0.86), and photon-alone escalation matched carbon on PFS (68.3% vs 61.1%) with 0% grade ≥3 radionecrosis. That makes 66-70 Gy conventionally fractionated photons the practical escalation route, not particle referral.
In a subtotally resected WHO grade 2 or any grade 3 meningioma being planned for postoperative RT, this supports considering escalation beyond 60 Gy/30 fx rather than defaulting to it; it does not speak to gross-totally resected grade 1 disease. The longer read
Photon-alone escalation to 70 Gy/35 fx or 66 Gy/33 fx matched carbon on 5-yr PFS (68.3% vs 61.1%) with zero grade ≥3 radionecrosis, versus 9.1% in the carbon subgroup. Boost PTV margins were 0.5 to 2 mm off cavity and residual tumor. That makes escalation a standard photon department decision, not a particle referral.
14 details
Individual patient-level meta-analysis pooling 248 patients from 7 international institutions, all retrospective except one prospective trial. Median follow-up 67.1 months (range 2.13-178). PFS was the primary outcome, analyzed by Kaplan-Meier, Cox MVA, and IPTW propensity weighting.
High-risk meningioma per RTOG 0539: newly diagnosed WHO grade 2 after STR/biopsy, any recurrent grade 2, or any grade 3. 188 (75.8%) were grade 2, 103 (41.5%) recurrent, and 182 (75.2%) had Simpson grade 4/STR. Median age 60; 55 (22.2%) had prior RT.
DE-RT was defined by biologically effective dose ≥79.2 Gy (equivalent to 66 Gy in 33 fractions) or receipt of a carbon-ion boost; anything below that threshold counted as SD-RT. Photon DE-RT used a sequential or simultaneous integrated boost with a 0.5 to 2 mm PTV margin, versus 1-2 cm CTV margins in the SD-RT arm. Carbon DE-RT boosted 16 Gy/8 fx after 50 Gy/25 fx photons with a 6 mm CTV margin.
Whole-cohort 3- and 5-yr PFS were 62.8% and 45.0%. DE-RT improved 3-yr (86.4% vs 55.6%) and 5-yr PFS (65.8% vs 38.8%), P = .0022, holding on stratified Cox by grade (HR 0.40, 0.22-0.73) and after IPTW (3-yr 84.7% vs 55.8%). OS was not improved on MVA or IPTW.
| Subgroup | 3-yr PFS DE-RT vs SD-RT | 5-yr PFS DE-RT vs SD-RT | MVA HR (95% CI) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simpson 1-3 | 87.5% vs 55.9% | 70.0% vs 40.0% | 0.31 (0.08-1.14) | .08 |
| Simpson 4-5 | 86.3% vs 55.4% | 63.3% vs 38.4% | 0.55 (0.36-0.84) | .006 |
| Cohort | Any-grade RN | Grade ≥3 RN |
|---|---|---|
| DE-RT overall | 20 of 59 (33.9%) | 3 of 59 (5.1%) |
| DE-RT mixed carbon/photon | 15 of 33 (45%) | 3 of 33 (9.1%) |
| DE-RT photon-alone | 5 of 26 (19.2%) | 0% |
| SD-RT | 25 of 189 (13.2%) | 6 of 189 (3.2%) |
Any-grade radionecrosis was 33.9% with DE-RT vs 13.2% with SD-RT (P = .001), but grade ≥3 RN did not differ (5.1% vs 3.2%, P = .47). All 3 grade ≥3 events in the DE-RT arm occurred in the mixed carbon-photon cohort; the photon-alone DE-RT cohort had none, and its any-grade RN rate was not significantly higher than SD-RT (P = .41). One grade 5 event occurred in each arm.
Published series anchored on RTOG 0539 report 5-yr PFS of roughly 40% to 60% with 60 Gy/30 fx, which is what the SD-RT arm reproduces (45.0% overall). The escalation signal draws on MARCIE (carbon boost) and the Zeng et al. photon series, both contributors to this pool, so the comparison is partly internal rather than independent.
DE-RT was delivered at only 2 of 7 institutions, one carbon-only and one photon-only, so treatment arm is nearly collinear with center, and unmeasured practice differences (DOTATATE PET planning, response assessment, supportive care) travel with it. Molecular classification was unavailable, and P values were not adjusted for multiple testing across the subgroup analyses.
The Simpson 1-3 subgroup showed absolute separation as large as Simpson 4-5 (5-yr PFS 70.0% vs 40.0%) without reaching significance (P = .08 on MVA), which the authors attribute to a smaller GTR subset and fewer events rather than an absent effect. Whether escalation belongs in fully resected disease is the open question, and the PFS-only benefit means the case rests on avoiding local progression and its neurologic morbidity, not on survival.
Retrospective IPD pooling, DE-RT confined to 2 centers, no randomization; IPTW cannot remove selection. Direction consistent across every sensitivity analysis, but prospective randomization still needed.
- Benefit of dose escalation after gross total resection
- Whether molecular subgroups predict DE-RT benefit
- Prospective randomized confirmation of the PFS signal
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
Abstract
2026-05-30 ASCO Annual Meeting 2026
ROADS
ForResected brain metastasis >2 cm, post-op cavity radiation candidates
NR vs 17 mo
GammaTile vs SRS; no HR, CI, or p reported in source
TL;DRSurgical bed recurrence 1% with GammaTile brachytherapy vs 12% post-op SRS in resected brain mets >2cm, N=230.
The RT read is the bed-control mechanism: GammaTile puts dose in the cavity at resection, closing the gap where post-op SRS fails in cavities >2 cm, with median time to bed recurrence not reached vs 17 mo. LMD was 10% GT vs 3% SRS, so the trade is bed control against meningeal seeding when picking the cavity strategy.
In a resected brain metastasis larger than 2 cm being planned for cavity radiation, this questions post-op SRS as the default bed strategy; it does not extend to intact metastases, cavities under 2 cm, or pts already carrying leptomeningeal disease. The longer read
Bed control is the read: median time to bed recurrence not reached vs 17 mo with post-op SRS, in cavities >2 cm where SRS control is weakest, with radiation necrosis flat at 8% GT vs 7% SRS. LMD 10% GT vs 3% SRS is the counterweight when choosing the cavity strategy.
The cavity radiation decision moves into the operation itself: GammaTile is implanted at resection, so a met >2 cm being taken out becomes a pre-op discussion about tile placement rather than a post-op SRS referral. The 10% vs 3% LMD signal is the intraoperative trade to weigh.
Also covered Sep 28
| Endpoint | GammaTile | SRS |
|---|---|---|
| Time to surg bed recur | NR | 17 mo |
| Surg bed recur FS | NR | 11 mo |
| 2 yr OS | 62% | 36% |
10 details
Randomized trial of GammaTile brachytherapy vs post-op SRS after resection of a brain metastasis, N=230, reported as final results at ASCO 2026 (Weinberg). Randomization ratio, number of sites, and follow-up duration not reported in source.
Resected brain metastasis >2 cm, the size band where post-op cavity SRS control is weakest. Histology mix, number of brain metastases allowed, systemic disease status, and performance status not reported in source.
Experimental arm is GammaTile, a Cs-131 collagen tile implanted in the cavity at the time of resection, so dose starts without the post-op delay. SRS dose, fractionation, cavity margin, and time from surgery to SRS are not reported in source, and those are exactly the parameters that decide whether the control arm reflects the reader's own practice.
Primary I: time to surgical bed recurrence. Primary II: surgical bed recurrence-free survival. 2 yr OS is reported alongside them; the source does not state whether OS was a prespecified secondary.
Both primaries favor GammaTile with medians not reached vs 17 mo and 11 mo. No HR, confidence interval, or p-value appears in the source.
Radiation necrosis 7% SRS vs 8% GT, essentially flat. Leptomeningeal disease 3% SRS vs 10% GT is the signal that cuts against the arm winning on bed control; timing and denominators not reported in source.
Post-op cavity SRS became standard on N107C/CEC.3 and the MDACC randomized trial, both of which traded whole-brain neurocognitive toxicity for weaker bed control, with failure concentrated in larger cavities. ROADS attacks that residual failure directly rather than re-litigating whole-brain RT.
The 2 yr OS separation, 62% vs 36%, is far larger than bed recurrence alone (12% vs 1%) would mechanistically support, which points at arm imbalance, differential salvage, or systemic therapy that the source does not report. The trial is also inherently unblinded, and the LMD excess in the GammaTile arm has no reported timing to judge whether it is procedure-related seeding.
If the bed-control numbers hold in the full report, the cavity strategy for a large resected met becomes a surgical-planning decision made before the operation rather than a radiation-planning decision made after it. The OS claim should wait for the manuscript.
Randomized, both primaries reported, final analysis. Verdict held below practice-changing: conference-slide source with no HR, CI, or p-value, and unexplained LMD excess.
- Is the 2yr OS separation confirmed with hazard ratios and cause of death?
- Does the leptomeningeal excess with GammaTile reflect seeding or longer survival?
- Does the benefit hold against fractionated post-op SRS rather than single fraction?
📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet
🚨🚨 ASCO 2026 Final Results Randomized trial resected brain met Brachytherapy vs Post-Op SRS🚨
— PDBrown (@PDBrownOnc) May 30, 2026
- Incredible Surg Bed Control with Brachy (↑↑OS as well)
- Surg bed recurrence 12% SRS vs 1% GammaTile pic.twitter.com/PCTsCluyUd
2026-05-29 ASCO Annual Meeting 2026
Wait or Treat (NCT05236946) NCT05236946
ForMetastatic EGFR/ALK+ NSCLC, asymptomatic measurable brain mets, ECOG 0-2
sub-HR 0.35
95% CI 0.21-0.59, p<0.001; 2y icPD 21.7% vs 50%
TL;DRUpfront cranial RT cut intracranial progression (sub-HR 0.35, 0.21-0.59, p<0.001) but 2y OS favored delayed RT, 48% vs 60%.
The intracranial win is real (2y progression 21.7% vs 50%, sub-HR 0.35) yet does not convert: 2y OS 48% upfront vs 60% delayed, HR 1.45. With necrosis reported ~6% upfront vs none delayed, and RT dose/technique unstated in source, this moves the timing decision toward deferral with MRI q3m surveillance.
In treatment-naive EGFR or ALK-driven metastatic NSCLC with asymptomatic measurable brain mets starting a TKI, this supports deferring cranial RT with q3m MRI rather than treating reflexively; it says nothing about symptomatic mets, large or dominant lesions, or oncogene-negative disease. The longer read
This is a timing question, not an omission question: both arms got cranial RT, and deferring cost 2y intracranial progression of 50% vs 21.7% while sparing necrosis (~6% upfront vs none delayed). Dose, fractionation, and WBRT-vs-SRS are absent from source, which is what gates transferring the toxicity read to your own technique.
The delayed arm's 1y intracranial progression of 25.7% on TKI plus chemotherapy is the number that makes upfront RT deferrable: most asymptomatic brain mets did not declare themselves in the first year. Deferral is contingent on q3m MRI surveillance, not on the TKI alone.
+2 more figures
10 details
Phase III open-label RCT, single-centre (Tata Memorial, Mumbai), N=208 randomised 1:1 to upfront (n=105) vs delayed cranial RT, both on TKI plus chemotherapy. Stratified by GPA (0-2 vs >2) and synchronous vs metachronous BM. Median follow-up 30.6 mo (28.7, 36).
Metastatic NSCLC with an EGFR or ALK alteration, ECOG PS 0-2, radiologically measurable brain metastases that were completely asymptomatic. Number, size, and location of lesions are not reported in source.
Upfront arm received cranial RT at diagnosis; the delayed arm received it at intracranial progression or patient's wish, so both arms are RT-exposed and the question is timing, not omission. Dose, fractionation, and technique (WBRT vs SRS) are not reported in source, which is the main barrier to transferring this result.
intracranial PFS. Secondary: OS, PFS, toxicity, ORR, neurocognition, PROM. Surveillance was MRI brain q3m for the first year, then q6m, which is what makes a delayed strategy safe to run.
Endpoint met. Survival ran the other way: 2y OS 48% upfront vs 60% delayed, OS HR 1.45, reported by attendees rather than captured in the slide OCR.
| Timepoint | Upfront RT (n=105) | Delayed RT (n=103) |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year | 8.7% (2.9%, 14.5%) | 25.7% (16.8%, 34.7%) |
| 2-years | 21.7% (12.6%, 30.8%) | 50% (39.2%, 60.9%) |
| Sub-HR (95% CI) | 0.35 (0.21, 0.59), p<0.001 | ref |
Radiation necrosis ~6% in the upfront arm and none in the delayed arm per attendee reports, and described as less severe when delayed. Full toxicity tables, neurocognition, and PROM were secondary endpoints not reported in the source.
The intracranial magnitude sits alongside the older WBRT-era data (QUARTZ, and the historic SRS-vs-WBRT trials) in showing that cranial RT controls the brain without buying survival. What is new is testing it where a CNS-penetrant TKI is the competing intracranial therapy, a setting those trials predate entirely.
Single-centre and open-label, and the RT prescription is absent from the source, so a reader cannot tell whether the necrosis signal reflects WBRT, SRS technique, or concurrent TKI exposure. Median follow-up of 30.6 mo is short relative to expected survival in this population, and the OS comparison was a secondary endpoint, not powered.
The result splits the two things RT is usually credited with: it clearly buys intracranial control, and it clearly does not buy time. Whether the OS direction is a real cost of upfront RT or noise in an underpowered secondary is the open question, and it decides whether deferral is merely non-inferior or actually preferred.
CONSORT flow
Randomised phase 3, prespecified intracranial PFS met, but the survival signal runs opposite the intracranial win. Directly contests reflex upfront cranial RT.
- Does the OS direction hold with longer follow-up?
- Was cranial RT whole-brain or stereotactic, at what dose?
- Neurocognition and PROM outcomes by RT timing
📚 Sources · 🐦 3 tweets
#ASCO26 | Wait or Treat? Brain RT in EGFR/ALK+ NSCLC
— OncLive.com (@OncLive) May 29, 2026
Presented by Dr Anil Ramakant Tibdewal.
A landmark Phase III randomized trial from @TataMemorial addressed a long-standing question: should asymptomatic brain metastases in oncogene-driven NSCLC receive upfront cranial RT or… pic.twitter.com/lRy9CfyQ8r
Should asymptomatic brain mets await systemic response in front line within EGFR/ALK context? I think yes. Despite reducing icPD, delayed brain RT OS looked better and radiation necrosis didn’t occur vs 6% #ASCO26 pic.twitter.com/O6d7GrvtU4
— Dr Riyaz Shah (@DrRiyazShah) May 29, 2026
No improvement in survival with up front radiation. OS favored delayed radiation with 2y OS 48% with early radiation vs 60% in late (OS HR 1.45). Also, radiation necrosis less common and less severe in delayed arm. Each case unique but delayed approach appealing #ASCO26 pic.twitter.com/wIhjqxhSaq
— Stephen V Liu, MD (@StephenVLiu) May 29, 2026