[Section V Stereotactic Radiosurgery]

Chapter 98 Spinal Neoplasms

Robert E. Lieberson, AKE HANSASUTA, Robert Dodd, STEVEN D. CHANG,

AND JOHN R. ADLER, JR.

INTRODUCTION

The successes of cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) inspired the development of spinal SRS.1-4 In little more than a decade, spinal SRS has revolutionized the treatment of spinal tumors and vascular malformations. The CyberKnife™ allows the delivery of very large doses of radiation to small lesions while sparing adjacent normal structures. By many measures, CyberKnife™ outcomes are comparable or superior to those obtained with conventional radiotherapy, frame based stereotactic systems, or conventional surgery.5-13 Since 1994 the CyberKnife™ has been used to treat over 8000 spinal lesions at more than 180 sites worldwide.

Technology Overview

The CyberKnife system consists of a lightweight, 6 megavolt (MV) linear accelerator (LINAC) mounted on an industrial robot, a remotely repositionable treatment couch, orthogonally placed digital x-ray cameras, a treatment delivery computer, and treatment planning stations (Fig. 98-1). During treatment, numerous images are obtained to optimally locate the target before the delivery of 100 to 150 individual treatment beams.14 The CyberKnife can deliver individual beams to any part of a tumor from nearly any angle and provides highly conformal dosing to complex 3-dimensional (3-D) targets.15

Several conventional radiation therapy (RT) systems have recently been modified to provide SRS using techniques originally developed for the CyberKnife™. The BrainLab Novalis, with floor and ceiling mounted x-ray detectors, most directly emulates the CyberKnife™ localization system. The Elekta Synergy, Varian Trilogy, and Novalis TX systems use different combinations of cone-beam CT scanners and orthogonal x-ray cameras. These RT based systems are constrained by the gimbal design of the gantry which only allows radiation to be delivered along two-dimensional arcs. Nevertheless, multi-leaf collimators can compensate for much of the constraints that stem from this gantry design.

TREATMENT details

Spinal SRS is image guided and completely frameless. Individually moulded masks or cradles are fashioned before the planning scans are completed. The patient rests in the mask or cradle during computed tomography (CT) scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 3-D angiography or positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, and again during treatment. The devices are comfortable, limit movement, and expedite positioning. At Stanford, we use an Aquaplast mask (WFR Corp., Wyckoff, NJ) for upper cervical lesions (Fig. 98-2A). Lower cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral lesions are treated using an AlphaCradle (Smithers Medical Products, Inc., Akron, OH) (see Fig. 98-2B). Most patients are treated supine but prone and lateral decubitus positioning is possible.

A high resolution, fine cut CT scan, most often with contrast, is required for all treatment plans. The CT is essential for its excellent spacial accuracy and is needed to calculate the digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) used for real time targetting. MRI scans may help with visualization but cannot be utilized alone because of the need to generate DRRs. Meanwhile, MRI often suffers from inherent limitations in spacial resolution. In the appropriate clinical situation PET or angiogram images are also obtained. When a framelses radiosurgical systems is used, the patient does not need to remain in the facility while the treatment plan is developed.

Bony landmarks are used to target spinal lesions and those in adacent structures. Spinal fusion hardware does not interfere with treament. The accuracy of CyberKnife approaches ±0.5 mm.7,16

For lesions not associated with bony landmarks, 3 or more gold seeds or titanium screws are implanted (see Fig. 98-3).13,15

CyberKnife treatment plans use Accuray’s MultiPlan software. BrainLab, Varian, and Elekta systems employ similar programs. After uploading the CT and other images to the planning station, the surgeon and radiotherapist “contour” the target and radiation-sensitive structures by tracing their outlines (see fig. 98-4). The dose and number of sessions, as well as dose limits for adjacent structures, are prescribed by the physicians (see fig. 98-5). Physicists then use the planning system, the contour data, and the dose prescriptions to create a 3-dimensional representation of the lesion geometry and define sets of treatment beams. An ideal treatment includes evenly distributed beams that target the dose uniformly while limiting exposure to sensitive structures (see fig. 98-6). The neurosurgeon and/or physicist will iteratively perfect the plan by adding or removing constraints, or re-positioning individual beams. A multidisciplinary team reviews and accepts each treatment plan before delivery.

During spinal radiosurgery, CyberKnife™ patients are placed on the operating table in their custom mask or cradle. Images are automatically obtained by the orthogonally placed x-ray cameras and compared with digitaly reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) which were precalculated by the planning software. The table is aligned and the computer aims and delivers the first treatment beam. Additional images are obtained, automatic corrections for movement are made, and all planned treatment beams delivered in order. This process is automatic; after the intitial targeting verification is performed by the treating neurosurgeon, radiation delivery is simply monitored by a radiation therapist. Not all commercially systems permit periodic re-imaging and beam re-targeting. As a result, in the event of patient movement during treatment with such radiosurgical devices, accuracy may be compromised.

INDICATIONS

It cannot be emphasized enough that the indications for spinal SRS continue to evolve quickly; spinal SRS is a new subdiscipline within neurosurgery and only now are standarized procedures for its application being developed. At our institution , we most frequently treat metastases, small benign tumors, postoperative residuals, lesions that recurr following conventional surgery or radiation, vascular malformations, inoperable tumors or lesions in those who decline surgery (see tables 98-1 and 98-2).3,7,13 Spinal lesions appropriate for CyberKnife™ radiosurgery should be reasonably well circumscribed, clearly visible on CT or MRI, and smaller than approximately 5 centimeters in diameter. We do not insist on obtaining a biopsy in advance of treatment if the diagnosis is clear from pre-radiosurgical imaging studies.

Spinal SRS is contraindicated in the presence of significant spinal cord compression causing a severe neurologic deficit, especially when the treated lesion is relatively radioresistant. Radiographic evidence of spinal cord compression is not in itself a contra-indication to spinal radiosurgery. Spinal SRS can be used as an adjunct if there is evidence of spinal instability. If the adjacent spinal cord has already received the maximum tolerated radiation dose, then surgery and/or chemotherapy may be more appropriate.

EXTRADURAL METASTASES

The spine is the most common site for bony metastases, accounting for nearly forty percent of osseus tumor spread.17 Forty percent of cancer patients will develop at least 1 spinal metastasis.18 Historically, spinal metastases have been managed with chemotherapy, radiopharmaceuticals, surgery, and external beam irradiation.17,19 Conventional irradiation of spinal metastatic tumors is useful for palliation but its effectiveness is limited by spinal cord tolerance20. Moreover, relapses are common,21-24 and re-treatment with RT is generally impossible.18 SRS enables much larger biologically effective doses to be delivered by utilizing a more highly conformal plan that protects the cord. Multiple courses of spinal SRS can control multiple asynchronous metastases and SRS may be used to sterilize a vertebral body before

vertebroplasty25 or following a debulking procedure. The presence of spinal fusion hardware is not a contraindication.26 SRS is ideal for those with limited life expectancies or those who need other treatment. Most SRS treatments are completed in a single one hour session.

Treatment protocols in the published literature vary greatly and there is significant debate regarding the most appropriate treatment margins.27 For purely bony lesions Amdur, et al.27 recommend treating visible tumor plus a 1 centimeter margin in bone or a 2 millimeter volume outside the external cortex. For lesions within the canal, the margins are not extended beyond the visible tumor. Many groups irradiate the entire affected vertebral body including the pedicles. Chang, et al.18 recommend treating the pedicles for possible tumor extension, pointing out that 18% of recurrences occurred in the pedicles. At Stanford we typically treat the volume of tumor as seen on CT or MRI.17 There are no studies which show a clear benefit of one approach over the other, but those who treat smaller volumes argue that the cord dose is decreased and that recurrences can be retreated. Dose recommendations are variable with single session prescriptions ranging from 8 to 24 Gy in the published literature.27 At Stanford we have used from 16 to 25 Gy in up to 5 fractions, but usually opt to treat in the fewest possible sessions as dictated by the length and dose of irradiated spinal cord.17

Overall the efficacy of radiosurgery for spinal metastases appears roughly comparable to that for brain metastases.2,3,17 Tumor growth is arrested by radiosurgery in up to 100% of cases and results are independent of histology (see table 98-3).4,28 Pain relief ranged from 43% to 96% and unlike standard RT, is generally apparent within days of SRS .27

Because of the delay between SRS and the involution of the tumor, radiosurgery is almost never an alternative to emergency decompression. Neither generalized metastatic involvement of the axial skeleton nor epidural carcinomatosis are indications for radiosurgery, as SRS cannot cover such broad areas effectively. In the presence of instability, radiosurgery may be used as an adjunct to a stabilization procedure such as vertebroplasty. Delayed post SRS spinal instability can occur but is not common.

INTRADURAL METASTASES

Intramedullary spinal cord metastases, which are rarely seen clinically, are found in 0.9% to 2.1% of autopsies in cancer patients.33 Such lesions comprise 8.5% of central nervous system metastases34 and their frequency will likely increase with longer patient survival. Wowra et al.29 review their results and the literature. They report that 96% of spinal metastases were well controlled with spinal SRS. The risk of myelopathy was less than 1%.

PRIMARY INTRAMEDULARY LESIONS

At Stanford, we have treated 92 hemangioblastomas in 31 patients. Sixteen were spinal intramedullary tumors. Patients were treated with a median radiosurgical dose of 23 Gy, and after a median of 34 months of follow-up, 15 of the 16 spinal hemangioblastomas in this series either remained stable or decreased in size. Among all hemangioblastomas, those causing edema and those associated with cysts did less well. None of the patients developed radiation myelopathy.35

Some spinal ependymomas prove difficult to resect for reasons of anatomy or associated medical co-morbidities. Although not common, tumor recurrence also occurs. There is very little information available regarding SRS. Ependymomas, which may be controlled with conventional radiation therapy, have responded favorably to spinal SRS in the few cases that have been published.3,36,37 The Stanford experience with CyberKnife radiosurgery has been quite favorable with good local control and no complications (unpublished data). We know even less about the treatment of spinal astrocytomas. For the occasional well-demarcated, biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed or recurrent spinal cord astrocytoma, spinal SRS may be a theoretical alternative if surgery is not possible.

INTRADURAL, EXTRAMEDULLARY LESIONS

Meningiomas, schwannomas, neurofibromas, and hemangioblastomas are the benign lesions most frequently considered for treatment with spinal SRS. However, microsurgical resection remains the most appropriate intervention for most patients. Surgical resection is generally curative and in the process, the surgeon both establishes a tissue diagnosis and immediately decompresses the spinal cord.38 Nevertheless SRS is appropriate for benign lesions that are inaccessible, when lesions are numerous (as in neurofibromatosis or von Hippel-Lindau disease), in patients with significant medical co-morbidities, or for patients who decline open surgery.39-41 Moreover, spinal radiosurgery also has the virtue of posing little risk to the parent motor or sensory nerves in cases of nerve sheath tumors.

Short term control rates for benign lesions intradural, extramedullary spinal tumors appear comparable to those of similar intracranial lesions. At Stanford we have treated 110 patients with 117 lesions (unpublished data). Greater numbers and longer follow-up periods confirm earlier published observations.42 Following SRS, 56% of schwannomas and meningiomas stabilized and 44% percent regressed radiographically. Neurofibromas did less well with 11% enlarging radiographically, over 50% causing increased pain, and 80% showing a worsening in at least one examination finding. Even including neurofibromas, most myelopathies and radiculopathies improved with SRS, whereas bowel and bladder dysfunction did not. Two of our patients eventually required surgery for tumor enlargement and 3 required surgery for persistent or progressing symptoms. Only 1 patient developed radiation myelopathy. Others centers have reported similar results.39-41

Vascular Malformations

Steiner, et al,43 published the first description of SRS for cranial AVM’s in 1972. The successes in treating the intracranial AVM’s inspired the use of SRS for spinal vascular malformations. Spinal AVM’s have been described using various systems. Most commonly they have been divided into 4 types.44 Types I and IV are dural and perimedullary fistulas and are better treated with embolization and resection. Most AVM’s treated with SRS are type II, or glomus AVM’s, with a well-defined nidus. Some type III, or juvenile AVM’s, may be amenable to SRS when well-focal and well-defined. SRS causes endothelial damage that leads to the obliteration of the vascular lumena.45 Low flow lesions, such as cavernous malformations, are rarely candidates for spinal SRS.46 Of 29 patients treated at Stanford between 1997 and 2009, 22 were followed more than

24 months (unpublished data). Most had glomus AVM’s and 1 had a type III lesion. Sixteen patients presented with hemorrhage and 8 had more than one bleed. Twelve lesions were cervical, 8 were thoracic, and 3 were in the conus. The usual treatment dose was 16 Gy in 1 session or 20 Gy in 2 sessions (with 10 Gy delivered to adjacent spinal cord). Ten patients (43%) were previously embolized. All postoperative MRI’s in treated patients showed a reduction in volume. Of the 8 patients who had post-SRS angiography, 3 had complete obliteration. None of the treated patients suffered a rebleed, including those where the AVM was not obliterated by MRI or angiography. There was no mortality. Symptoms improved in over 50% and only 3 patients reported worsening of symptoms. There was only 1 case of radiation myelopathy (3%).

TREATMENT FAILURES AND COMPLICATIONS

Treatment failures fall into several groups. “In-field failures” refer to tumor re-growth within the treated volume and may be related to inadequate dosing. “Marginal failures” involve re-growth at the edges of the treated volume and may be related to poor imaging, an underestimate of the tumor volume, or inaccuracies in position or set-up. “Distant failures” are not complications but rather involve new lesions in untreated areas. For vertebral metastases, the chance of an asynchronous metastasis in an adjacent level is only 5%.47 Furthermore, neurological damage can be divided into 3 groups. (1) Acute complications that occur within 1 month, are usually due to edema, are transient, and are treated with steroids; (2) subacute complications that occur 3 to 6 months after treatment, may be secondary to demyelination, and usually recover; and 3) radiation myelopathy, which is the most feared complication and usually occurs after 6 months. This risk more than any other limits the radiosurgical dose used for most paraspinal lesions.48 In conventional radiotherapy it is generally believed that treatment with 45 Gy in 22 to 25 fractions is associated with an incidence of myelopathy of only 0.2%. Meanwhile, among the first 1000 patients treated with CyberKnife for spinal lesions at both Stanford and the University of Pittsburgh over the past decade, only 6 developed myelopathy (0.6%). In large part due this 10-year track record with radiosurgery, a re-evaluation of the conventional wisdom and long-standing radiotherapy guidelines pertaining to spinal cord tolerance is taking place. Nevertheless, at Stanford we generally seek to avoid exposing more than 1 cubic centimeter of spinal cord to greater than 10 Gy in single session plans.49

Other complications are rare and, fortunately, less severe. Skin reactions are seen most commonly when the posterior elements are radiated, nausea pharyngitis, esophagitis, diarrhea are related to gastrointestinal tract exposure. Renal complications, occasionally related to Thoraco-lumbar SRS, are rare.

Summary

While the complexity of spinal lesions and their close association with the cord make operative treatment difficult, it also makes them ideal candidates for spinal SRS. SRS, although a recent development, is supported by a rapidly expanding literature. For many lesions of the vertebral bodies, and some intradural, extramedulary lesions, CyberKnife radiosurgery is clearly both safe and effective. For vascular lesions, the treatment is superior to embolization and surgery for AVM’s. Early results show that treatment of selected intramedullary lesions is also possible. It is likely that the indications will expand and the quality of the results will improve as our experience increases.

References

1. Leksell L: The stereotactic method and radiosurgery of the brain. Acta Chir Scand 102:316-319, 1959.

2. Schultheiss TE, Kun LE, Ang KK, Stephens LC: Radiation response of the central nervous system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 22:1093-1112, 1995.

3. Ryu S, Fang YF, Rock J, et al: Image-guided and intensity-modulated radiosurgery for patients with spinal metastasis. Cancer 97:2013-2018, 2003.

*4. Yamada Y, Bilsky MH, Lovelock DM, et al: High-dose, single-fraction intensity-modulated radiotherapy for metastatic spinal lesions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:484-490, 2008.

5. . Adler JR, Chang SD, Murphy MJ, et al: The CyberKnife: a frameless robotic system for radiosurgery. Funct Neurosurg 69:124-128, 1997.

6. Chang SD, Murphy M, Geis P, et al: Clinical experience with image-guided robotic radiosurgery (the CyberKnife) in the treatment of brain and spinal cord tumors. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 38: 780-783, 1998.

*7. Ryu SI, Chang SD, Kim DH, et al: Image-guided hypo-fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery to spinal lesions. Neurosurg 49:838-846, 2001.

8. Chang SD, Meisel JA, Hancock SL, et al. Treatment of hemangioblastomas in von Hippel-Lindau disease with linear accelerator-based radiosurgery. Neurosurg 43:28-35, 1998.

9. Chang SD, Murphy MJ, Martin DP, et al. Image-guided robotic radiosurgery: clinical and radiographic results with the CyberKnife. In: Kondziolka D (ed): Radiosurgery. Basel: Karger, 1999.

10. Chang SD, Murphy MJ, Martin DP, et al. Frameless stereotactic neurosurgery. In: Brady IW, Apuzzo ML, Petrovich Z, et al (eds). Combined modality therapy of central nervous system tumors. New York: Springer, 2000.

11. Murphy MJ, Chang SD, Gibbs IC, et al: Image-guided radiosurgery in the treatment of spinal metastases. Neurosurg Focus 11:1-7, 2001.

12. Murphy MJ, Martin D, Whyte R, et al: The effectiveness of breath-holding to stabilize lung and pancreas tumors during radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 29:475-482, 2002.

*13. Gerszten PC, Ozhasoglu C, Burton SA, et al: CyberKnife frameless real-time image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of spinal lesions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30: S370-S371, 2003

14. Murphy MJ, Chang SD, Gibbs IC, et al: Patterns of patient movement during frameless image-guided radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:1400-1408, 2003.

*15. Chang SD, Le QT, Martin DP, et al. The CyberKnife. In: Fehlings MG, Gokaslan ZL Dickman CA (eds). Spinal Cord and Spinal Column Tumors: Principles and Practice. New York: Thieme, 2006.

*16. Murphy MJ, Cox RS: The accuracy of dose localization for an image-guided frameless radiosurgery system., Medical Physics 23:2043-2049, 1996.

*17. Gibbs IC, Kamnerdsupaphon P, Ryu MR, et al: Image-guided robotic radiosurgry for spinal metastases. Radiother Oncol 82:185-189, 2007.

*18. Chang EL, Shiu AS, Mendel E, et al: Phase I/II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis and its pattern of failure. J Neurosurg, Spine 7:151-160, 2007.

19. Loblaw DA, Laperriere NJ: Emergency treatment of malignant extradural spinal cord compression: an evidence-based guideline., J Clin Oncol 16:1613-1624, 1998.

20. Kopelson G, Linggood R, Kleinmann G: Management of intramedulary spinal cord tumors., Radiol 135:473-479, 1980.

21. McCuniff AJ, Liang MJ: Radiation tolerance of the cervical spinal cord. Int J Radiat Ocol Biol Phys 16:675-678, 1989.

22. Marcus RB, Million RR: The incidence of myelitis after irradiation of the cervical spinal cord., Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:3-8, 1990.

23.,van der Kogel AV: Radiation njury in the central nervous system. In: Lundsford D (ed): Stereotactic Radiosurgery. New York: McGraw Hill, 1993.

24. Schultheiss TE, Kun LE, Ang KK, Stephens LC: Radiation response of the central nervous system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 22:1093-1112, 1995.

*25. Gerszten PC, Germanwala A, Burton SA, et al: Combination kyphoplasty and spinal radiosurgery: a new treatment paradigm for pathological fractures. Neurosurg Focus 18:E8, 2005

*26. . Muacevic A, Staehler M, Drexler C, et al: Technical description, phantom accuracy, and clinical feasibility for fiducial free frameless real-time image-guided spinal radiosurgery. J Neurosurg, Spine 5:303-312, 2006.

*27. Amdur RJ, Bennett J, Olivier K, et al: A prospective phase II study demonstrating the potential value and limitation of radiosurgery for spine metastases. Am J Clin Oncol 32:1-6, 2009.

*28. Yamada Y, Lovelock DM, Yenice KM, et al: Multifractionated image-guided and stereotactic intensity-modulated radiotherapy of paraspinal tumors: a preliminary report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:53-61, 2005.

29. Wowra B, Zausinger S, Muacevic A, Tonn J-C: Radiosurgery for spinal malignant tumors. Dtsch Arztel Int 106:106-112, 2009.

*30. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, Welch WC: Radiosurgery for spinal metastases. Clinical experience in 500 cases from a single institution. Spine 32:193-199, 2007.

*31. Ryu S, Jian-Yue J, Ryan J, et al: Partial volume tolerance of the spinal cord and complicationsof single-dose radiosurgery. Cancer 109:628-636, 2006.

32. Milker-Zabel S, Zabel A, Thilmann C, et al: Clinial results of retreatment of vertebral bone metastases by stereotactic conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55:162-167, 2003.

33. Chamberlain MC, Eaton KD, Fink JR, Tredway T: Intradural intramedullary spinal cord metastasis due to mesothelioma., J Neurooncol, online publication, 2009.

34. Parikh S, Heron DE: Fractionated radiosurgical management of intramedullary spinal cord metastasis: a case report and review of the literature. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, Epub ahead of print, 2009.

*35. Moss JM, Choi CY, Adler JR, et al: Stereotactic radiosurgical treatment of cranial and spinal hemangioblastomas. Neurosurg 65:79-85, 2009.

*36. Ryu S, Kim DH, Chang SD: Stereotactic radiosurgery for hemangioblastomas and ependymomas of the spinal cord., Neurosurgery Focus 15:1-5, 2003.

*37. Bhatnagar AK, Gerszten PC, Ozhasaglu C, et al: CyberKnife radiosurgery for the treatment of extracranial benign tumors. Technol Cancer Res Treat 4:571-576, 2005.

38. Cherqui A, Kim DH, Kim SH, et al: Surgical approaches to paraspinal nerve sheath tumors., Neurosurg Focus 22:E9, 2007.

*39. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, et al: Radiosurgery for benign intradural spinal tumors. Neurosurg 62:887-895, 2008.

*40. Murovic JA, Gibbs IC, Chang SD, et al: Foraminal nerve sheath tumors: intermediate follow-up after CyberKnife radiosurgery. Neurosurg 64 (suppl):A33-A43, 2009.

*41. Selch MT, Lin K, Agazaryan N, et al: Initial clinical experience with image-guided linear accelerator-based spinal radiosurgery for treatment of benign nerve sheath tumors. Surg Neurology, E Pub Ahead of Print, 2009.

*42. Dodd RL, Ryu MR, Kamnerdsupaphon P, et al: CyberKnife radiosurgery for benign intradural extramedullary spinal tumors. Neurosurg 58:674-685, 2006.

43. Steinter L, Leksell L, Greitz T, et al: Stereotaxic radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations: report of a case. Acta Chir Scand 138:459-464, 1972.

*44. Kim LJ, Spetzler RF: Classification and surgical management of spinal arteriovenous lesions: arteriovenous fistulae and arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurg 59:195-201, 2006.

45. Chang SD, Shuster DL, Steinberg GK, et al: Stereotactic radiosurgery of arteriovenous maformation: pathologic changes in resected tissue. Clin Neuropathol 16:111-116, 1997.

*46. Sinclair J, Chang SD, Gibbs IC, Adler JR: Multisession CyberKnife radiosurgery for intramedullary spinal cord arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurg 58:1081-1089, 2006.

*47. Ryu S, Rock J, Rosenblum M, et al: Pattern of failure after single dose radiosurgery for spinal metastasis. Neurosurg 101:402-405, 2004.

*48. Rampling R, Symonds P: Radiation myelopathy. Curr Opin Neurol 11:627-632, 1998.

*49. Gibbs IC, Patil C, Gerszten PC, et al: Delayed radiation-induced myelopathy after spinal radiosurgery. Neurosurg 64:A67-A72, 2009.

Figure 98-1. The CyberKnife frameless stereotactic system includes a modified 6-MV X-band LINAC mounted on a highly maneuverable robotic manipulator (KUKA Roboter GmbH, Augsburg, Germany) (A). Two high-resolution x-ray cameras are mounted orthogonally to the headrest (B). One of the two x-ray sources is mounted in the ceiling projecting onto the camera (C). The treatment couch is mobile, allowing the x-ray sources to image targets at any point along the neuraxis (D).

Figure 98-2. Simple immobilization devices used during CyberKnife treatment. The Aquaplast mask is used in patients with upper cervical lesions. (A). AlphaCradle custom body mold is used for those with lesions below the cervical spine (B).

Figure 98-3. Implanted fiducials are marked and numbered. Left: Computed tomography-based digitally reconstructed images from the perspective of the 2 orthogonal CyberKnife mounted x-ray cameras (A and B). Center: Real time x-ray images from the two x-ray cameras. Right: Overlay of the reconstructed and actual radiographic images.

Figure 98-4. Contour of L3 metastasis in axial, saggital and coronal projections. The epidural metastasis is in red.

Figure 98-5. Contour of L3 metastasis and spinal roots with superimposed isodose lines from treatment plan in axial, saggital, and coronal projections. The epidural metastasis is in red, the spinal roots are blue, and the 80% isodose line is represented by the thin green line.

Figure 98-6. Contour of L3 metastasis and cauda equina with superimposed isodose lines from treatment plan in axial, saggital, and coronal projections. The epidural metastasis is in red, the spinal roots are blue, and the 80% isodose line is the smaller green line.

Figure 98-7. Left: Spinal cord AVM prior to treatment. Note the compact nidus. Right: Spinal cord AVM 3 years after SRS. Complete angiographic obliteration noted.

Table 98-1Indications and Contraindications for Stereotactic Spinal Radiosurgery

Indications ContraindicationsProgressive but minimal neurologic deficit

Post-resection or post-RT local irradiation (boost)Disease progression after surgery and/or irradiation

Inoperable lesions or high risk lesion locationsMedical co-morbidities that preclude surgery

Lesions in patients who decline surgery

Spinal instability (adjunctive treatment only)Neurologic deficit caused by bony compression

Severe neurologic deficit due to cord compressionAdjacent cord previously radiated to maximum doseVery rare lesions not responsive to ionizing radiation

TABLE 98-2Treated/Treatable Lesions with CyberKnife Radiosurgery

Tumors Benign Neurofibroma, schwannoma, meningioma, hemangioblastoma, chordoma, paraganglioma, ependymoma, epidermoid Malignant/metastatic Breast, renal, non-small cell lung, colon, gastric and prostate metastases; squamous cell (laryngeal, esophageal, and lung) tumors; osteosarcoma; carcinoid; multiple myeloma; clear cell carcinoma; adenoid cystic carcinoma; malignant nerve sheath tumor; endometrial carcinoma; malignant neuroendocrine tumor

Vascular Malformations Arteriovenous malformation (types 2 and 3)

Table 98-3Literature Review, SRS for Spinal Vertebral Metastases

SiteLesions

/ Patients

Tumor Type Modality Dose /

Fractions Contouring Complications Pain better

Local control

Overall Survival

Amdur, et al., 2009.27

25 / 21 Various LINAC / IMRT

15 Gy / 1 Lesion with margin

No neurologic toxicity

43% 95% 25% at one year

Wowra, et al., 2009.29

134 / 102 Various CyberKnife 15 to 24 Gy / 1

Not specified No SRS related neurologic deficits

86% 88% Median survival 1.4 years

Yamada, et al., 2008.4

103 / 93 Various LINAC / IMRT

18 to 24 Gy / 1

Entire vertebral body

No neurologic toxicity

Not reported

90% 36% at 3 years

Gibbs, et al., 2007.17

102 / 74 Various CyberKnife 14 to 25 Gy/ 1 to 5

Lesion only 3 cases myelopathy

84% No symptom progression

46% at 1 year

Chang, et al., 2007.18

74 / 63 Various LINAC / IMRT

27 to 30 Gy / 3 to 5

Entire vertebral body

No neurologic toxicity

60% 77% 70% at 1 year

Gerszten, et al, 2007.30

500 / 393 Various CyberKnife 12.5 to 25 Gy / 1

Lesion only No neurological toxicity

86% 90% Not stated

Ryu, et al., 2006.31

230 / 177 Various LINAC / IMRT

8 to 18 Gy / 1

Entire body with pedicles

1% risk of myelopathy

85% 96% 49% at 1 year

Milker-Zabel, et al., 2003.32

19 / 18 Various LINAC / IMRT or FCRT

24 to 45 / variable

Entire vertebral body

No neurologic toxicity

81% 95% 65% at 1 year