Atormac
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 6446  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (625 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Introduction
 » Methodology
 » Srs Technique
 » Repeat Radiosurgery
 » Conclusions
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4427    
    Printed80    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded234    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 841-851

Stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial arteriovenous malformations: A review


Department of Neurological Sciences, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication20-Nov-2015

Correspondence Address:
Vedantam Rajshekhar
Department of Neurological Sciences, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.170102

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has proven to be an effective strategy in the management of intracranial arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) in children and adults over the past three decades. Its application has resulted in lowering the morbidity and mortality associated with treatment of deep-seated AVMs. SRS has been used as a primary modality of therapy as well as in conjunction with embolization and microsurgery in the management of AVMs. The obliteration rate after SRS has been reported to range from 35% to 92%. Smaller AVMs receiving higher marginal doses have obliteration rates of 70% and more. The median follow-up reported in most series is approximately 36–40 months. The median time to obliteration has been reported to be approximately 24–36 months in most series. Radiation-induced neurological complications have been reported in less than 10% of patients, with a 1.5%–6% risk of developing a new permanent neurological deficit. The bleeding rate during the latency to obliteration has been reported to be approximately 5%. This review describes the experience reported in literature with respect to the indications, dosage, factors affecting obliteration rate of AVMs, and complications after SRS.


Keywords: Arteriovenous malformations; brain AVM; gamma knife; hemorrhage; intracranial; linear accelerator; stereotactic radiosurgery


How to cite this article:
Moorthy RK, Rajshekhar V. Stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial arteriovenous malformations: A review. Neurol India 2015;63:841-51

How to cite this URL:
Moorthy RK, Rajshekhar V. Stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial arteriovenous malformations: A review. Neurol India [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Dec 15];63:841-51. Available from: http://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2015/63/6/841/170102



 » Introduction Top


Intracranial arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are developmental anomalies that present with parenchymal or intraventricular bleeds in children and adults, resulting in considerable morbidity exceeding 25%.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] Children are probably at a higher lifetime risk of hemorrhage from an AVM as compared with adults.[6] They are more likely to present with hemorrhage from an AVM than adults.[7] The annual rate of hemorrhage from intracranial AVMs has been reported to be between 2 and 4%, with the yearly risk being possibly higher among children.[6],[8] The primary goal of management in these patients is to prevent rebleed.[6] Although endovascular embolization has been used to treat AVMs, its role as a sole treatment modality in achieving complete obliteration is limited.[3],[9] While microsurgery remains the treatment of choice for patients with small superficial AVMs that have bled, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has a definite role in the management of these AVMs as well as deep-seated AVMs that are associated with a higher surgical morbidity.[1],[2],[3],[4],[6],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]


 » Methodology Top


A literature search was performed from PubMed using a combination of the following keywords: "brain AVM," "intracranial AVM," "stereotactic radiosurgery," "haemorrhage," "complications of radiosurgery", "repeat radiosurgery", "hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy"; and articles published in English language retrieved. While the data related to the results in children were retrieved from articles dating back to 2000, the overall data incorporating findings amongst all age-groups was summarized from articles published over the past three years.


 » Srs Technique Top


SRS, traditionally, refers to the technique of treating a lesion in the brain with a single session of radiation therapy, administering a dose of radiation to the target with rapid dose fall-off, thereby minimizing the dose delivered to the adjacent normal brain. In 2006, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology modified the definition to include delivery of radiation in up to five doses.[16] It has been in vogue for nearly four decades for the management of several pathologies in the brain. The mode of delivery of SRS has been the linear accelerator (LINAC), gamma knife (GK), or proton beam.[11],[17],[18]

LINAC uses high-energy X-rays (photons) to deliver the radiation, while GK uses gamma rays from cobalt-60 isotope to deliver the radiation. Proton beam radiosurgery involves the use of high-energy protons as the source of radiation.[17] A variation of LINAC-based planning and radiation delivery is robotic radiosurgery (CyberKnife), in which the patient need not be immobilized during radiation delivery.[19],[20],[21] The software accounts for movements of the patient, and inverse planning is used, applying constraints to the dose delivered to eloquent structures in the vicinity of the AVM.[21] With the currently available dose delivery techniques, LINAC and GK systems have comparable results.[22] Dose distribution and delivery in plans comparing CyberKnife and micromultileaf collimator have also been found to be not significantly different from each other.[20]

The K index—calculated as the prescribed minimum dose of radiation delivered x (AVM volume)1/3—has been proposed to guide the dose of radiation delivered. However, its use may be limited to SRS for small AVMs, with obliteration rates increasing linearly up to a value of 27.[23] In one series, the prescribed dose was reported to be lower than the calculated K index, and this modification was done owing to smaller volume of the AVM and did not result in a lower obliteration rate.[23] Thus, the prescribed dose of radiation to the AVM is a function of the AVM volume and location. SRS planning ensures that only a small volume of normal tissue adjacent to the target receives radiation. If required, several separate targets can be chosen to treat a lesion with a large volume, and each target is treated as a separate isocenter. Radiation may be delivered via circular collimators through noncoplanar arcs or as fixed shots (in GK), or via micromultileaf collimator through fixed beams.[1],[3],[14],[24],[25]

The prescribed dose of radiation is with reference to the isodose that would cover the periphery of the AVM. In effect, the areas within this isodose would receive higher than the prescribed dose, while the adjacent tissue outside this isodose would receive far lower doses of radiation. Treatment planning in SRS differs from that in conventional radiotherapy techniques in that it ensures that the dose delivered to the normal brain tissue is minimal, and this is achieved by conforming the dose delivered to the desired volume of the target.

Radiobiological effects of SRS

Stereotactic definition of the target restricts the radiobiological effects of SRS to the AVM, with only a small volume of the surrounding normal tissue receiving radiation.[3] The immediate effect of SRS is damage to the endothelial cells of the vessels in the nidus, probably mediated by release of tissue-specific cytokines. This is followed by initiation of a chronic inflammatory process, with formation of granulation tissue that has fibroblasts and new capillaries. Myofibroblasts, which are actin-producing fibroblasts, have been detected in the region of radiation, and these have been postulated to exert contractile properties and facilitate AVM obliteration.[26] The ensuing radiation-induced vasculopathy results in progressive occlusion of vessels within the AVM nidus. This process takes from 1 to 3 years.

AVM obliteration after SRS

MRI has been used as an effective screening tool to document nidus obliteration after SRS.[3],[27] MRI has been shown to have a reliability of 97% in documenting AVM obliteration.[3] Most authors recommend an yearly follow-up with MRI after SRS, and DSA may be used to confirm its obliteration once the MRI shows evidence of obliteration. MRI also aids in assessing radiation-induced changes in the vicinity of the nidus.

Obliteration of AVMs after SRS has been reported to range from 35% to 92%, with the obliteration rate exceeding 70% in most series [Table 1].[1],[3],[4],[11],[12],[14],[25],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59] In a series of unruptured AVMs in children, SRS resulted in an obliteration rate of 58%.[60] In another series reporting on the results of radiosurgery for incidental AVMs, the obliteration rate was 61%.[61] The obliteration rate with small AVMs has exceeded 80% in most series.[37],[50] In several of these series, the obliteration rate of AVM after initial radiosurgery has been further improved upon by subjecting patients with residual lesions to repeat SRS.[30],[48] For large AVMs and Spetzler–Martin grade 4 AVMs, volume-staged SRS has been reported to increase the obliteration rate.[62],[63]
Table  1: Overview of recently published series reporting outcomes after SRS for intracranial AVMs

Click here to view


The interval-to-obliteration after SRS could be from 1 to 4 years or even longer. In one series, the median time to obliteration of AVMs was as delayed as 4.2 years.[57] The highest possibility of AVM obliteration is within the first 3 years after SRS, with AVMs in noneloquent regions having a shorter latency period before obliteration.[64] This shorter latency period may be a function of the higher marginal dose of radiation that was delivered to the AVM located in a noneloquent region.[64] A minimum of 3- to 4-year follow-up of the AVM is required, before SRS can be deemed as a failure.[65]

Factors affecting AVM obliteration

Smaller AVM volume, higher marginal dose of radiation, smaller maximal diameter, smaller number of isocenters, radiosurgery-based AVM score <1, lower modified Pollock–Flickinger score, lower Spetzler–Martin grade, younger age, and absence of a history of embolization have all been documented to have correlation with higher obliteration rates in series reporting on SRS for AVMs.[1],[2],[3],[4],[11],[14],[22[],[27],[28],[30],[31],[32],[37],[38],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[52],[66] No difference in the AVM obliteration rate was observed among the patients >60 years of age as compared with adults <60 years.[66]

Volume of AVM and marginal dose

In several series, smaller-volume AVMs have been reported to have higher obliteration rates than the overall obliteration rate reported.[28],[29],[40],[41],[51],[58],[59] Smaller AVM volume allows prescription of a higher dose of radiation, and hence, it would be expected to have a higher chance of obliteration.[40] Recently, several authors have confirmed that the most important predictor of obliteration was a higher marginal dose of radiation.[11],[22],[28],[29],[30],[38],[40],[52],[53],[59],[60] In LINAC-based SRS for AVMs, the obliteration rate ranged from 55% to 89.2%, with a mean marginal dose ranging from 18 to 25 Gy.[1],[27],[57],[66],[35] Potts et al.,[11] reported a 52% rate of obliteration with a dose of >18 Gy, while only 16% of AVMs that received <18 Gy were obliterated in a series reporting on the results of GK-based SRS for AVMs.

Spetzler–Martin grading and AVM radiosurgery score

The Spetzler–Martin grading was designed to assess the risk of morbidity related to excision of AVMs.[35] After SRS, Spetzler–Martin grade I/II AVMs have been reported to have a higher obliteration rate as compared with grade III–V AVMs.[36],[39],[52],[67] Complications after SRS were also reported to be lower among Spetzler–Martin grade I/II AVMs.[67] The radiosurgery-based AVM score developed at Pittsburgh and its subsequent modifications (Pollock–Flickinger score) have taken into account the role of AVM volume and location that are indirect determinants of the dose of radiation that can be optimally prescribed to an AVM.[68],[69] Hence, this modified AVM radiosurgery score is a better predictor of outcome after SRS as compared with the Spetzler–Martin grading. The AVM radiosurgery score has been validated in various series of AVMs in adults and children treated with LINAC as well as GK, where it was found to be a significant determinant of outcome.[1],[3],[34],[44],[50],[68],[69],[70] Children with modified AVM radiosurgery score of <1 had a higher obliteration rate associated with a lower rate of radiation-induced complications, with up to 88% chance of an excellent outcome.[1],[12] Kano et al.,[14] reported a higher obliteration rate with lower symptomatic adverse radiation effects in children with a lower Pollock–Flickinger score. Raffa et al.,[71] reported excellent outcomes in 70% of patients with an AVM radiosurgery score of <1 as compared with only 11% of patients with an AVM radiosurgery score of >2.5. A scoring system developed in the University of Virginia has also been validated among adults and children, with lower scores being associated with increased chance of AVM obliteration and low post-SRS morbidity.[36],[53],[61],[72] However, some authors have reported no correlation between AVM obliteration and the AVM radiosurgery score or the Spetzler–Martin grading.[10],[12],[32],[48]

Prior embolization

Embolization of AVMs is often not curative but could decrease the chances of rebleed in the interim period while awaiting SRS.[9],[44] Several reports as well as a meta-analysis have suggested that previous embolization could result in a suboptimal definition of the AVM target for SRS, and this could result in the AVMs not being completely obliterated.[4],[23],[28],[42],[52],[54],[73] It is also possible that the nidus that was not visualized after embolization could recanalize at a later stage and hence would contribute to lower obliteration rates. Moreover, it is likely that AVMs that are subjected to partial embolization will be larger in volume compared with those that can be completely embolized, and this would be a confounding factor while assessing outcomes comparing embolization and SRS.[43]

However, some recent reports suggest that previous embolization may not be associated with a lower obliteration rate after SRS.[29],[32],[60],[74] For large AVMs, the strategy of staged embolization to reduce the volume of lesion up to 33% followed by SRS for the residual AVM has resulted in obliteration rates up to 45%.[75]

Angioarchitecture

The angioarchitecture of AVMs has shown poor correlation with AVM obliteration in the pediatric age-group. A compact nidus and a lower number of draining veins have been reported to be favorable factors towards achieving AVM obliteration.[30],[32] Others have not reported any relationship between the angioarchitecture of the AVM and their obliteration rates.[48] Target definition is easier and more likely to be complete with a compact nidus, and it has been suggested that one of the main reasons for failure of radiosurgery is suboptimal delineation of the AVM.[3] In various series reporting the outcomes of SRS in children and adult population, the presence of a single draining vein has been a predictor of obliteration.[36],[53]

Complications of SRS in AVMs

Neurological deficits

New-onset neurological deficits after SRS have been reported in 0–17.6% patients in different series of LINAC- and GK-based SRS in AVMs.[1],[4],[15],[18],[27],[37],[47],[50],[53],[54],[57],[66] Permanent neurological deficits after SRS have been reported to occur in 1.5–6% of patients.[3],[14],[34],[37],[41],[47],[50] A higher incidence of radiation-induced complications has been reported after LINAC-/GK-based SRS in children with larger volumes of AVM as well as with Spetzler–Martin grade IV and V AVMs.[3],[4],[24],[27],[42] AVMs located in the brainstem, thalamus, or basal ganglia as well as those with a higher Pollock–Flickinger score have been reported to have a higher risk of developing post-SRS neurological deficits.[14]

Seizures

In patients presenting with seizures before SRS, radiosurgery was associated with persistence of seizures as compared with microsurgery. AVM obliteration was associated with seizure freedom. The risk of new-onset seizures after treatment was higher with surgery than with radiosurgery.[76] Another series has corroborated the fact that no new seizures developed after SRS in patients who had been seizure-free before treatment.[38] Patients presenting with simple partial or generalized seizures had better seizure outcomes after SRS, and AVM obliteration was strongly associated with withdrawal of antiepileptic drug therapy.[77] Contrary to this, seizure control after SRS did not correlate with AVM obliteration in a series reporting on only temporal lobe AVMs.[78] New-onset seizures have been reported after proton beam radiosurgery that persisted in up to 9.2% of patients on a long-term follow-up.[52]

Radiation-induced imaging changes

Asymptomatic signal changes on MRI have been reported in up to 30% of patients from 2 to 7 years after SRS.[3],[79] In a large series, 33.8% of 1426 patients who underwent SRS were reported to have radiation-induced imaging changes at a median duration of 13 months after SRS. The imaging changes were symptomatic in 8.6% patients, and there was resolution of these changes at a follow-up of almost 2 years.[80] Large size of the nidus, presence of a single draining vein, absence of previous hemorrhage, presence of diabetes mellitus, a higher Virginia radiosurgery AVM scale score, and absence of surgical intervention before SRS, have all been associated with the risk of eliciting radiation-induced imaging changes.[33], 53, [80],[81],[82] In a smaller series of 10 patients, the incidence of signal changes on MRI after SRS and hypofractionated SRT (HSRT) was as high as 60%.[49] Segmental narrowing in normal arteries, which is clinically silent, has been documented in children on long-term follow-up angiograms.[81] Dysplastic changes in feeding arteries and early venous thrombosis with resultant venous infarction have been reported after SRS in one series.[83]

Rebleed or hemorrhage from AVM

Almost 60% of patients presented with hemorrhage from AVM before SRS in most series.[3],[14] Hence, the main goal of SRS was to prevent rebleeding of the AVM. The inherent risk of rebleeding remains up to the time AVM is obliterated. Rebleeding could be due to the residual nidus as the AVM undergoes obliteration. It has not yet been established whether partial obliteration of AVM would minimize the risk of a bleed. Rebleeding has also been associated with development of de novo arterial pseudoaneurysms and new venous varix after radiosurgery.[83] Rebleeding from previously ruptured AVMs or hemorrhage from AVMs after SRS has been reported in up to 25% of patients by Potts et al.[11] Other series have reported rates between 1.3% and 9%.[2],[3],[31],[41],[42],[48],[53],[54] The risk of hemorrhage has been observed to be the highest during the first year after treatment.[43] Low marginal dose of radiation, presence of multiple draining veins, and periventricular location of the AVM have been associated with the risk of hemorrhage in the latency period between SRS and AVM obliteration.[41],[53] Pregnancy during the latency period before AVM obliteration may be a risk factor for AVM hemorrhage and hence patients may be advised to defer pregnancy till obliteration has been achieved.[84]

Cyst formation

Cyst formation within the brain parenchyma can occur as a delayed complication after SRS in 1.5%–3.4% of patients, the median duration of cyst formation being reported from 4 years to up to 10 years after SRS.[14],[38],[42],[85] These cysts could causes a mass effect necessitating surgical decompression. It has been postulated that the cysts form owing to radiation-induced necrosis and expand as a result of repeated hemorrhages into it from an enhancing nodule (probably radiation-induced cavernous angioma or noncavernous angioma-like granulation tissue with fragile capillaries).[85]

Radiation-induced neoplasms

Radiation-induced neoplasms such as meningiomas and glioblastomas have been reported to occur in children after SRS for AVMs.[86],[87],[88] However, the reported incidence of occurrence of these neoplasms is not higher than that reported in the general population. Pollock et al.,[88] have reported an incidence of radiation-induced tumors of 0.007% at a long-term follow-up after radiosurgery. In a cohort of patients with long-term follow-up, the chance of developing a radiation-induced neoplasm was 0.64%, 10 years after undergoing SRS for an AVM, and the cumulative rate among 78 patients who had a 15-year follow-up was 3.4%. These reports do underscore the importance of long-term follow-up of patients, particularly children, with AVMs treated with SRS.[89]

Recurrence of AVM

Lindqvist et al.,[81] reported the recurrence of an AVM with hemorrhage in children who had documented complete obliteration of the AVM after SRS. This has been reported in adult patients too, and the recurrence may be at the site of the previous nidus or a new nidus may develop adjacent to the previous one.[90] Children with AVMs undergoing SRS are at a lifetime risk of symptomatic recurrence, albeit very rare, and hence need a long-term follow-up.

Cognitive effects

Although no cognitive or neurobehavioral sequelae were reported in a small number of patients by Riva et al.,[91] Yeon et al.,[30] reported a decline in the scholastic performance in 44% of children who underwent SRS for AVMs. Long-term studies on larger numbers of patients are needed before it can be ascertained that SRS in children will have no bearing on cognition. In a series reporting data on 10 patients who underwent hypo-fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) for AVMs, defects were observed in several domains tested before therapy. At 6 weeks after completion of HSRT, there was worsening of semantic processing that returned to baseline after 6 months. At longer-term assessment 2.5–3.5 years after HSRT, there was improvement in memory function, probably as a result of restoration of normal hemodynamic pattern of blood flow to previously hypoperfused regions.[92]


 » Repeat Radiosurgery Top


Repeat radiosurgery is an option when patients have persistent or residual nidus 3 or more years after the initial SRS.[65],[93],[94] The dose–response curve for obliterating a previously treated AVM has been reported to be similar to that of an untreated AVM. When there is reduction in the nidus volume after the initial SRS, it may be possible to administer a higher marginal radiation dose, facilitating obliteration.[93],[94] The marginal dose of radiation delivered during the repeat SRS may have to be reduced if the nidus volume has increased (as occurs rarely after recanalization of partially embolized AVMs) or if the patient has had an adverse radiation effect after the initial SRS.[93] Several series have improved upon previous obliteration rates by repeating SRS of the residual nidus. Kano et al.,[93] reported an 80% actuarial obliteration rate at 10 years after repeat SRS in 105 patients. Reduction in the volume of an AVM by 50% or more and a smaller target volume were associated with a higher chance of total obliteration. Reduction in target volume by less than 50% after the initial SRS and the presence of hemorrhages before repeat SRS were associated with increased risk of hemorrhage after repeat SRS. In this series, the rate of symptomatic radiation-related side effects was 10.5% after repeat SRS, while it was 4.8% after initial SRS. Other series have reported obliteration rates of up to 65% after repeat SRS, with similar rates of complications.[93],[94],[95],[96] In a meta-analysis of 733 patients who underwent repeat SRS for incompletely obliterated AVMs, the mean obliteration rate was 61% (95% confidence interval, 51.9%–71.7%). The interval to complete obliteration after repeat SRS ranged from 21 to 40.8 months. Overall, a hemorrhage risk of 7.6% and radiation-induced changes among 7.4% of cases were reported after repeat SRS.[93] The results are summarized in [Table 2].
Table  2: Summary of series reporting repeat SRS for intracranial AVMs

Click here to view


Radiosurgery strategies for large AVMs

While small AVMs and SM grade I/II AVMs have a good response to SRS, management of larger AVMs require individualized strategies that are often multimodal.[63],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103],[104],[105],[106] Large AVMs, defined in most series as those with a volume more than 10 cm 3, can be treated with volume-staged SRS or dose-staged SRS.[104] In each of these strategies, the underlying principle is to reduce the volume being treated in each radiosurgery session, so that an optimal dose of radiation can be administered. This may be achieved by dividing the AVM into smaller volumes and administering SRS to each volume in a staged manner, a few months apart (volume-staged SRS).[62],[97],[98],[104] The other strategy is to treat the entire volume with a single-session RS and then to repeat the same after 3 years, so that the initial SRS reduces the volume of the AVM to a size that would have a higher chance of obliteration with repeat SRS (dose staging).[62],[99],[100]

Apart from repeat SRS, HSRT offers an alternative dose-staging strategy to treat large AVMs by delivering the dose in 3–6 fractions (5–7 Gy per fraction) and reducing the dose delivered per fraction. Between each fraction, an interval of up to a week is given for the normal tissue to recover from radiation-related acute injury.[98],[101],[102],[104]

With the aforementioned strategies, obliteration rates more than 50% have been achieved. However, as summarized in [Table 3], the post-SRS hemorrhage risks and radiation-related complications appear to be slightly higher in this subgroup of patients, as compared with that reported with single-session SRS for smaller AVMs.[62], 63, [98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103],[104],[105],[106] In one series, the paradigm of reducing large AVMs, considered inoperable, to smaller volumes with multiple sessions of SRS followed by surgery for the residue has been reported.[63] It has also been proposed that after SRS, large-sized AVMs could be partially embolized with a view to achieve size reduction and partial cure as well as to reduce the risk of hemorrhage.[104],[105] As any intervention in large AVMs is associated with lesser chance of AVM obliteration and higher percentage of risks of therapy, Spetzler–Martin grade IV/V AVMs may be observed without any intervention unless they have bled or have produced progressive neurological deficits.[107]
Table  3: Radiosurgery/hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy for large arteriovenous malformations

Click here to view


Radiosurgery for unruptured AVMs

Results of the ARUBA trial (wherein recruitment was prematurely halted) showed a clear superiority of medical management for adult patients with unruptured AVMs as compared with any intervention, with risk of death or stroke being higher in the intervention group.[107] However, in this randomized trial of medical management versus intervention for unruptured AVMs, 31 patients in the intervention group underwent radiotherapy alone, and the mortality/morbidity rates in this subgroup have not been reported separately. It is possible that the mortality and morbidity may have been skewed by combining patients with multimodality intervention as well as surgery alone with patients who received radiotherapy alone. SRS for AVMs have been reported to be safe among unruptured AVMs treated in children and in adults.[60],[61],[65] However, SRS may currently be reserved for unruptured AVMs of lower Spetzler–Martin grade and may not be recommended for unruptured grade IV/V AVMs. In patients with unruptured AVMs presenting with fixed neurological deficits or well-controlled seizures, it is important to discuss the management option of intervention versus follow-up with the patient. In such instances, management will need to be individualized based on patient preference and the experience of the treating neurosurgeon. A proposed radiosurgery-based algorithm for management of AVMs is summarized in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Algorithm for the management of intracranial AVMs. Among unruptured AVMs, symptomatic AVMs are those presenting with seizures or progressive focal neurological deficits

Click here to view


Radiosurgery in childhood versus adult AVMs

Although children who undergo radiosurgery are more likely than adults to have a hemorrhagic presentation, bleeding rates during the latency period to obliteration have been reported to be lower among children, though not statistically significant.[7] It has also been observed that AVMs take a shorter time to obliterate in children than in adults after SRS.[31] Pan et al.,[43] observed that the obliteration rate of medium-sized AVMs was lower in children compared with adults. Although there is a concern regarding side effects secondary to the delivery of high dose of radiation to the developing brain, complication rates among children have been reported to be comparable to that seen in adults, if not lower.[7] Hence, no attempt has been made to reduce the radiation dose in children vis-à-vis adults and radiosurgery treatment paradigms report the same dose range in children and adults.[31],[43],[44] Attempts at lowering the marginal dose have been correlated with lower obliteration rates.[11]


 » Conclusions Top


SRS has been proven to be effective in the management of ruptured as well as unruptured AVMs. A higher marginal dose of radiation is the most important factor in predicting AVM obliteration after SRS. Obliteration and complication rates reported in literature suggest that there is no difference in the efficacy and safety of different delivery systems. While it is most effective in the management of small AVMs, treatment paradigms for larger AVMs include multiple-session SRS or HSRT. Even after obliteration has been achieved, these patients need a long-term follow-up to determine the cognitive sequelae, delayed complications, and rarely, AVM recurrence.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
 » References Top

1.
Buis DR, Dirven CM, Langerwaard FJ, Mandl ES, Lycklama A, Nijeholt GJ, et al. Radiosurgery of brain arteriovenous malformations in children. J Neurol 2008;255:551-60.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Foy AB, Wetjen N, Pollock BE. Stereotactic radiosurgery for pediatric arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2010;21:457-61.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Kondziolka D, Kano H, Yang HC, Flickinger JC, Lunsford L. Radiosurgical management of pediatric arteriovenous malformations. Childs Nerv Syst 2010;26:1359-66.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Reyns N, Blond S, Gauvrit JY, Touzet G, Coche B, Pruvo JP, et al. Role of radiosurgery in the management of cerebral arteriovenous malformations in the pediatric age group: Data from a 100-patient series. Neurosurgery 2007;60:258-76.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Majumdar M, Tan LA, Chen M. Critical assessment of the morbidity associated with ruptured cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Neurointerv Surg 2015. [Epub ahead of print]  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Gross BA, Storey A, Orbach DB, Scott M, Smith ER. Microsurgical treatment of arteriovenous malformations in pediatric patients: The Boston Children&#39;s Hospital experience. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2015;15:71-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Nicolato A, Lupidi F, Sandri MF, Foroni RE, Zampieri P, Mazza C, et al. Gamma knife radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations in children/adolescents and adults. Part I: Differences in epidemiologic, morphologic, and clinical characteristics, permanent complications, and bleeding in the latency period. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:904-13.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ondra SL, Troupp H, George ED, Schwab K. The natural history of symptomatic arteriovenous malformations of the brain: A 24 year follow-up assessment. J Neurosurg 1990;73:387-91.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Soltanolkotabi M, Schoeneman SE, Alden TD, Hurley MC, Ansari SA, DiPatri AJ Jr, et al. Onyx embolization of intracranial arteriovenous malformations in pediatric patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2013;11:431-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Garza-Mercado R, Cavazos E, Tamez-Montes D. Cerebral arteriovenous malformations in children and adolescents. Surg Neurol 1987;27:131-40.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Potts MB, Sheth SA, Louie J, Smyth MD, Sneed PK, McDermott MW, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery at a low marginal dose for the treatment of pediatric arteriovenous malformations: Obliteration, complications, and functional outcomes. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2014;14:1-11.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Cohen-Gadol AA, Pollock BE. Radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations in children. J Neurosurg 2006;104(Suppl):388-91.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Darsaut TE, Guzman R, Marcellus ML, Edwards MS, Tian L, Do HM, et al. Management of pediatric intracranial arteriovenous malformations: Experience with multimodality therapy. Neurosurgery 2011;69:540-56.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Kano H, Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, Yang HC, Flannery TJ, Awan NR, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations, Part 2: Management of pediatric patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2012;9:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Zabel-du Bois A, Milker-Zabel S, Huber P, Schlegel W, Debus J. Pediatric cerebral arteriovenous malformations: The role of stereotactic linac-based radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:1206-11.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Barnett GH, Linskey ME, Adeler JR, Cozzens JW, Friedman WA, Heilbrun MP, et al.; American Association of Neurological Surgeons; Congress of Neurological Surgeons Washington Committee Stereotactic Radiosurgery Task Force. Stereotactic radiosurgery - An organized neurosurgery-sanctioned definition. J Neurosurg 2007;106:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Walcott BP, Hattangadi-Gluth JA, Stapleton CJ, Ogilvy CS, Chapman PH, Loeffler JS. Proton beam stereotactic radiosurgery for pediatric cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 2014;74:367-74.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Loeffler JS, Rossitch E Jr, Siddon R, Moore MR, Rockoff MA, Alexander E 3rd. Role of stereotactic radiosurgery with a linear accelerator in treatment of intracranial arteriovenous malformations and tumors in children. Pediatrics 1990;85:774-82.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Ding C, Solberg TD, Hrycushko B, Medin P, Whitworth L, Timmerman RD. Multi-staged robotic stereotactic radiosurgery for large cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Radiother Oncol 2013;109:452-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Blamek S, Grządziel A, Miszczyk L. Robotic radiosurgery versus micro-multileaf collimator: A dosimetric comparison for large or critically located arteriovenous malformations. Radiat Oncol 2013;8:205.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Colombo F, Cavedon C, Casentini L, Francescon P, Causin F, Pinna V. Early results of CyberKnife radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2009;111:807-19.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Orio P, Stelzer KJ, Goodkin R, Douglas JG. Treatment of arteriovenous malformations with linear accelerator-based radiosurgery compared with gamma knife surgery. J Neurosurg 2006;105(Suppl):58-63.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Karlsson B, Lingquist C, Steiner L. Prediction of obliteration after gamma knife surgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 1997;40:425-31.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Missios S, Bekelis K, Al-Shyal G, Rasmussen PA, Barnett GH. Stereotactic radiosurgery of intracranial arteriovenous malformations and the use of the K index in determining treatment dose. Neurosurg Focus 2014;37:E15.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Kiran NA, Kale SS, Vaishya S, Kasliwal MK, Gupta A, Sharma MS, et al. Gamma knife surgery for intracranial arteriovenous malformations in children: A retrospective study in 103 patients. J Neurosurg 2007;107(Suppl):479-84.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Szeifert GT, Kemeny AA, Timperley WR, Forster DM. The potential role of myofibroblasts in the obliteration of arteriovenous malformations after radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 1997;40:61-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Maity A, Shu HK, Tan JE, Ruffer J, Sutton LN, Tochner Z, et al. Treatment of pediatric intracranial arteriovenous malformations with linear-accelerator-based stereotactic radiosurgery: The University of Pennsylvania experience. Pediatr Neurosurg 2004;40:207-14.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Matsuo T, Kamada K, Izumo T, Hayashi N, Nagata I. Linear accelerator-based radiosurgery alone for arteriovenous malformations: More than 12 years of observation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;89:576-83.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Lecavalier-Barsoum M, Roy D, Doucet R, Fortin B, Lambert C, Moumdjian R, et al. Long-term results of radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Can J Neurol Sci 2013;40:182-6.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Yeon JY, Shin HJ, Kim JS, Hong SC, Lee JI. Clinico-radiological outcomes following gamma knife radiosurgery for pediatric arteriovenous malformations. Childs Nerv Syst 2011;27:1109-19.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Nicolato A, Lupidi F, Sandri MF, Foroni RE, Zampieri P, Mazza C, et al. Gamma knife radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations in children/adolescents and adults. Part II: Differences in obliteration rates, treatment-obliteration intervals, and prognostic factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:914-21.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Tamura N, Hayashi M, Chernov M, Tamura M, Horiba A, Konishi Y, et al. Outcome after Gamma Knife surgery for intracranial arteriovenous malformations in children. J Neurosurg 2012;117(Suppl):150-7.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Quigg M, Yen CP, Chatman M, Quigg AM, McNeill IT, Przybylowski CJ, et al. Risks of history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and other factors related to radiation-induced changes following gamma knife surgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2012;117(Suppl):144-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Skjøth-Rasmussen J, Roed H, Ohlhues L, Jespersen B, Juhler M. Complications following linear accelerator based stereotactic radiation for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77:542-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Spetzler RF, Martin NA. A proposed grading system for arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 1986;65:476-83.  Back to cited text no. 35
[PUBMED]    
36.
Ding D, Yen CP, Xu Z, Starke RM, Sheehan JP. Radiosurgery for low-grade intracranial arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2014;121:457-67.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Bowden G, Kano H, Caparosa E, Tonetti D, Niranjan A, Monaco EA 3rd, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations of the postgeniculate visual pathway. J Neurosurg 2015;122:433-40.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Bowden G, Kano H, Tonetti D, Niranjan A, Flickinger J, Arai Y, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for sylvian fissure arteriovenous malformations with emphasis on hemorrhage risks and seizure outcomes. J Neurosurg 2014;121:637-44.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Ding D, Starke RM, Yen CP, Sheehan JP. Radiosurgery for cerebellar arteriovenous malformations: Does infratentorial location affect outcome? World Neurosurg 2014;82:e209-17.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Fokas E, Henzel M, Wittig A, Grund S, Engenhart-Cabillic R. Stereotactic radiosurgery of cerebral arteriovenous malformations: Long-term follow-up in 164 patients of a single institution. J Neurol 2013;260:2156-62.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Bowden G, Kano H, Yang HC, Niranjan A, Flickinger J, Lunsford LD. Gamma Knife surgery for arteriovenous malformations within or adjacent to the ventricles. J Neurosurg 2014;121:1416-23.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Pan DH, Kuo YH, Guo WY, Chung WY, Wu HM, Liu KD, et al. Gamma knife surgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations in children: A 13-year experience. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2008;1:296-304.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Smyth MD, Sneed PK, Ciricillo SF, Edwards MS, Wara WM, Larson DA, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for pediatric intracranial arteriovenous malformations: The University of California at San Francisco experience. J Neurosurg 2002;97:48-55.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Yen CP, Monteith SJ, Ngueyn JH, Rainey J, Schelsinger DJ, Sheehan JP. Gamma Knife surgery for arteriovenous malformations in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2010;6:426-34.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Levy EI, Niranjan A, Thompson TP, Scarrow AM, Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, et al. Radiosurgery for childhood intracranial arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 2000;47:834-42.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Shin M, Kawamoto S, Kurita H, Tago M, Sasaki T, Morita A, et al. Retrospective analysis of a 10-year experience of stereotactic radio surgery for arteriovenous malformations in children and adolescents. J Neurosurg 2002;97:779-84.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Börcek AÖ, Emmez H, Akkan KM, Öcal Ö, Kurt G, Aykol S, et al. Gamma Knife radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations in pediatric patients. Childs Nerv Syst 2014;30:1485-92.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Dinca EB, de Lacy P, Yianni J, Rowe J, Radatz MW, Preotiuc-Pietro D, et al. Gamma knife surgery for pediatric arteriovenous malformations: A 25-year retrospective study. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2012;10:445-50.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Blamek S, Larysz D, Miszczyk L. Stereotactic linac radiosurgery and hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for pediatric arteriovenous malformations of the brain: Experiences of a single institution. Childs Nerv Syst 2013;29:651-6.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Burrow AM, Link MJ, Pollock BE. Is stereotactic radiosurgery the best treatment option for patients with a radiosurgery-based arteriovenous malformation score≤1? World Neurosurg 2014;82:1144-7.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Wang YC, Huang YC, Chen HC, Wei KC, Chang CN, Lee ST, et al. Linear accelerator stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of intracranial arteriovenous malformations: Long-term outcome. Cerebrovasc Dis 2014;37:342-9.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Hattangadi-Gluth JA, Chapman PH, Kim D, Niemierko A, Bussiere MR, Stringham A, et al. Single-fraction proton beam stereotactic radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;89:338-46.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Ding D, Yen CP, Starke RM, Xu Z, Sheehan JP. Radiosurgery for ruptured intracranial arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2014;121:470-81.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Kano H, Lunsford D, Flickinger JC, Yang HC, Flannery TJ, Awan NR, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations, Part 1: Management of Spetzler-Martin grade I and II arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2012;116:11-20.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Ding D, Yen CP, Starke RM, Xu Z, Sun X, Sheehan JP. Radiosurgery for Spetzler-Martin grade III arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2014;120:959-69.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Bowden G, Kano H, Tonetti D, Niranjan A, Flickinger J, Lunsford LD. Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations of the cerebellum. J Neurosurg 2014;120:583-90.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Zacest AC, Caon J, Roos DE, Potter AE, Sullivan T. LINAC radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations: A single centre prospective analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci 2014;21:241-5.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Ding D, Yen CP, Xu Z, Starke RM, Sheehan JP. Radiosurgery for primary motor and sensory cortex arteriovenous malformations: Outcomes and the effect of eloquent location. Neurosurgery 2013;73:816-24.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Franzin A, Snider S, Boari N, Scomazzoni F, Picozzi P, Spatola G, et al. Evaluation of prognostic factors as predictor of AVM&#39;s obliteration after Gamma Knife radiosurgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013;155:619-26.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Ding D, Xu Z, Yen CP, Starke RM, Sheehan JP. Radiosurgery for unruptured cerebral arteriovenous malformations in pediatric patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015;157:281-91.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Yen CP, Ding D, Cheng CH, Starke RM, Shaffrey M, Sheehan J. Gamma Knife surgery for incidental cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2014;121:1015-21.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Yamamoto M, Akabane A, Matsumaru Y, Higuchi Y, Kasuya H, Urakawa Y. Long-term follow-up results of intentional 2-stage Gamma Knife surgery with an interval of at least 3 years for arteriovenous malformations larger than 10 cm 3. J Neurosurg 2012;117(Suppl):126-34.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Abla AA, Rutledge WC, Seymour ZA, Guo D, Kim H, Gupta N, et al. A treatment paradigm for high-grade brain arteriovenous malformations: Volume-staged radiosurgical downgrading followed by microsurgical resection. J Neurosurg 2015;122:419-32.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Galván De la Cruz OO, Ballesteros-Zebadúa P, Moreno-Jiménez S, Celis MA, García-Garduño OA. Stereotactic radiosurgery for pediatric patients with intracranial arteriovenous malformations: Variables that may affect obliteration time and probability. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015;129:62-6.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Niranjan A, Lunsford LD. Stereotactic radiosurgery guideline for the management of patients with intracranial arteriovenous malformations. Prog Neurol Surg 2013;27:130-40.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Nataf F, Schlienger M, Lefkopoulos D, Merienne L, Ghossoub M, Foulquier JN, et al. Radiosurgery of cerebral arteriovenous malformations in children: A series of 57 cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:184-95.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Koltz MT, Polifka AJ, Saltos A, Slawson RG, Kwok Y, Aldrich EF, et al. Long term outcome of Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations graded by the Spetzler-Martin classification. J Neurosurg 2013;118:74-83.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Pollock BE, Flickinger JC. Modification of the radiosurgery-based arteriovenous malformation grading system. Neurosurgery 2008;63:239-43.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Wegner RE, Oysul K, Pollock BE, Sirin S, Kondziolka D, Niranjan A, et al. A modified radiosurgery-based arteriovenous malformation grading scale and its correlation with outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79:1147-50.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Moreno-Jimenez S, Celis MA, Larraga-Gutierrez JM, Suarez-Campos Jde J, Garcia-Garduñno A, Hernandez-Bojorquez M, et al. Intracranial arteriovenous malformations treated with LINAC-based conformal radiosurgery: Validation of the radiosurgery-based arteriovenous malformation score as a predictor of outcome. Neurol Res 2007;29:712-6.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Raffa SJ, Chi YY, Bova FJ, Friedman WA. Validation of the radiosurgery-based arteriovenous malformation score in a large linear accelerator radiosurgery experience. J Neurosurg 2009;111:832-9.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Starke RM, Yen CP, Ding D, Sheehan JP. A practical grading scale for predicting outcome after radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations: Analysis of 1012 treated patients. J Neurosurg 2013;119:981-7.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Xu F, Zhong J, Ray A, Manjila S, Bambakidis NC. Stereotactic radiosurgery with and without embolization for intracranial arteriovenous malformations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2014;37:E16.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Lee CC, Chen CJ, Ball B, Sclesinger D, Xu Z, Yen CP, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations after Onyx embolization: A case-control study. J Neurosurg 2015;123:126-35.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Dalyai R, Theofanis T, Starke RM, Chalouhi N, Ghobrial G, Jabbour P, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery with neoadjuvant embolization of larger arteriovenous malformations: An institutional experience. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:306518.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Wang JY, Yang W, Ye X, Rigamonti D, Coon AL, Tamargo RJ, et al. Impact on seizure control of surgical resection or radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 2013;73:648-56.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Przybylowski CJ, Ding D, Starke RM, Yen CP, Quigg M, Dodson B, et al. Seizure and anticonvulsant outcomes following stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2015;122:1299-305.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Ding D, Quigg M, Starke RM, Xu Z, Yen CP, Przybylowski CJ, et al. Radiosurgery for temporal lobe arteriovenous malformations: Effect on temporal location on seizure outcomes. J Neurosurg 2015;1-11.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, Pollock B, Yamamoto M, Gorman DA, et al. A multi-institutional analysis of complication outcomes after arteriovenous malformation radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44:67-74.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Yen CP, Matsumoto JA, Wintermark M, Schwyzer L, Evans AJ, Jensen ME, et al. Radiation-induced imaging changes following Gamma Knife surgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2013;118:63-73.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Lindqvist M, Karlsson B, Guo WY, Kihlström L, Lippitz B, Yamamoto M. Angiographic long-term follow-up data for arteriovenous malformations previously proven to be obliterated after gamma knife radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 2000;46:803-10.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Paúl L, Casasco A, Kusak ME, Martínez N, Rey G, Martínez R. Results for a series of 697 arteriovenous malformations treated by gamma knife: Influence of angiographic features on the obliteration rate. Neurosurgery 2014;75:568-83.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Gross BA, Ropper AE, Du R. Vascular complications of stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013;115:713-7.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
Tonetti D, Kano H, Bowden G, Flickinger JC, Lunsford LD. Hemorrhage during pregnancy in the latency interval after stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2014;121(Suppl):226-31.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
Shuto T, Ohtake M, Matsunaga S. Proposed mechanism for cyst formation and enlargement following Gamma Knife surgery for arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2012;117(Suppl):135-43.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
Sheehan J, Yen CP, Steiner L. Gamma Knife surgery-induced meningioma. Report of two cases and review of the literature. J Neurosurg 2006;105:325-9.  Back to cited text no. 86
    
87.
Yoshida K, Ichikawa T, Kurozumi K, Yanai H, Onoda K, Date I. Fatal glioblastoma after Gamma Knife radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformation in a child. J Clin Neurosci 2014;21:1453-5.  Back to cited text no. 87
    
88.
Pollock BE, Gorman DA, Coffey RJ. Patient outcomes after arteriovenous malformation radiosurgical management: Results based on a 5-to 14-year follow-up study. Neurosurgery 2003;52:1291-7.  Back to cited text no. 88
    
89.
Starke RM, Yen CP, Chen CJ, Ding D, Mohila CA, Jensen ME, et al. An updated assessment of the risk of radiation-induced neoplasia after radiosurgery of arteriovenous malformations. World Neurosurg 2014;82:395-401.  Back to cited text no. 89
    
90.
Yun JH, Kwon do H, Lee EJ, Lee do H, Ahn JS, Kwun BD. New nidus formation adjacent to the target site of an arteriovenous malformation treated by Gamma Knife surgery. J Neurosurg 2012;117(Suppl):120-5.  Back to cited text no. 90
    
91.
Riva D, Pantaleoni C, Devoti M, Lindquist C, Steiner L, Giorgi C. Radiosurgery for cerebral AVMs in children and adolescents: The neurobehavioral outcome. J Neurosurg 1997;86:207-10.  Back to cited text no. 91
    
92.
Murray AL, Dally M, Jeffreys A, Hwang P, Anderson JF. Neuropsychological outcomes of stereotactic radiotherapy for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Clin Neurosci 2014;21:601-6.  Back to cited text no. 92
    
93.
Awad AJ, Walcott BP, Stapleton CJ, Ding D, Lee CC, Loeffler JS. Repeat radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Clin Neurosci 2015;22:945-50.  Back to cited text no. 93
    
94.
Kano H, Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, Yang HC, Flannery TJ, Awan NR, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations, Part 3: Outcome predictors and risks after repeat radiosurgery. J Neurosurg 2012;116:21-32.  Back to cited text no. 94
    
95.
Stahl JM, Chi YY, Friedman WA. Repeat radiosurgery for intracranial arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 2012;70:150-4.  Back to cited text no. 95
    
96.
Yen CP, Jain S, Haq IU, Jagannathan J, Schlesinger D, Sheehan J, et al. Repeat γ knife surgery for incompletely obliterated cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 2010;67:55-64.  Back to cited text no. 96
    
97.
Sirin S, Kondziolka D, Niranjan A, Flickinger JC, Maitz AH, Lunsford LD. Prospective staged volume radiosurgery for large arteriovenous malformations: Indications and outcomes in otherwise untreatable patients. Neurosurgery 2006;58:17-27.  Back to cited text no. 97
    
98.
Wang HC, Chang RJ, Xiao F. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for large arteriovenous malformations. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3 (Suppl 2):S105-110.  Back to cited text no. 98
    
99.
Kim HY, Chang WS, Kim DJ, Lee JW, Chang JW, Kim DI, et al. Gamma Knife surgery for large cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2010;113(Suppl):2-8.  Back to cited text no. 99
    
100.
Karlsson B, Jokura H, Yamamoto M, Soderman M, Lax I. Is repeated radiosurgery an alternative to staged radiosurgery for very large brain arteriovenous malformations? J Neurosurg 2007;107:740-4.  Back to cited text no. 100
    
101.
Blamek S, Larysz D, Miszczyk L, Idasiak A, Rudnik A, Tarnawski R. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for large or involving critical organs cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Radiol Oncol 2013;47:50-6.  Back to cited text no. 101
    
102.
Lindvall P, Grayson D, Bergström P, Bergenheim AT. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in medium-sized to large arteriovenous malformations. J Clin Neurosci 2015;22:955-8.  Back to cited text no. 102
    
103.
Hanakita S, Koga T, Shin M, Igaki H, Saito N. Application of single-stage stereotactic radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations >10 cm 3. Stroke 2014;45:3543-8.  Back to cited text no. 103
    
104.
Moosa S, Chen CJ, Ding D, Lee CC, Chivakula S, Starke RM, et al. Volume-staged versus dose-staged radiosurgery outcomes for large intracranial arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurg Focus 2014;37:E18.  Back to cited text no. 104
    
105.
Kano H, Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, Park KJ, Parry PV, Yang HC, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations, Part 6: Multistaged volumetric management of large arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2012;116:54-65.  Back to cited text no. 105
    
106.
Huang PP, Rush SC, Donahue B, Narayana A, Becske T, Nelson PK, et al. Long-term outcomes after staged-volume stereotactic radiosurgery for large arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 2012;71:632-44.  Back to cited text no. 106
    
107.
Mohr JP, Parides MK, Stapf C, Moquete E, Moy CS, Overbey JR, et al.; International ARUBA investigators. Medical management with or without interventional therapy for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA): A multicentre, non-blinded, randomised trial. Lancet 2014;383:614-21.  Back to cited text no. 107
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by
1 Linear Accelerator Stereotactic Radiosurgery of Central Nervous System Arteriovenous Malformations: A 15-Year Analysis of Outcome-Related Factors in a Single Tertiary Center
José Luis Thenier-Villa,Raúl Alejandro Galárraga-Campoverde,Rosa María Martínez Rolán,Adolfo Ramón De La Lama Zaragoza,Pedro Martínez Cueto,Víctor Muñoz Garzón,Manuel Salgado Fernández,Cesáreo Conde Alonso
World Neurosurgery. 2017; 103: 291
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Operative nuances of surgery for cortical arteriovenous malformations: A safe solution and permanent cure
HarjinderS Bhatoe
Neurology India. 2016; 64(7): 101
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow