Next Article in Journal
(Neo)Adjuvant Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: Special Focus on Sex Differences
Next Article in Special Issue
Oncologic Outcome and Immune Responses of Radiotherapy with Anti-PD-1 Treatment for Brain Metastases Regarding Timing and Benefiting Subgroups
Previous Article in Journal
Completion of FLOT Therapy, Regardless of Tumor Regression, Significantly Improves Overall Survival in Patients with Esophageal Adenocarcinoma
Previous Article in Special Issue
Intracranial Hemorrhage in Patients with Anticoagulant Therapy Undergoing Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases: A Bi-Institutional Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/cancers14041085
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Applications of Frameless Image-Guided Robotic Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology: A Systematic Review

by
Felix Ehret
1,2,3,*,
David Kaul
2,4,5,
Volker Budach
2,4 and
Laura-Nanna Lohkamp
6
1
Berlin Institute of Health at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany
2
Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, 13353 Berlin, Germany
3
European Radiosurgery Center, 81377 Munich, Germany
4
Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charité CyberKnife Center, 13353 Berlin, Germany
5
German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Berlin, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
6
Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(4), 1085; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cancers14041085
Submission received: 22 November 2021 / Revised: 3 February 2022 / Accepted: 9 February 2022 / Published: 21 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Image-Guided Robotic Technology Based Radiosurgery for Cancers)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Radiotherapy plays a vital role in the multimodal treatment of pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors. In cases of small-to-medium-sized, well-demarcated lesions, high-precision treatment modalities such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are well-established in adult patients. SRS and, more specifically, robotic radiosurgery (RRS) and robotic stereotactic radiotherapy (RSRT) have only limited evidence in the field of pediatric neuro-oncology. This systematic review aims to report and assess the available RRS and RSRT data and studies. Results demonstrate that both treatment modalities are infrequently applied and primarily used in specific situations, including postoperative, palliative, and salvage treatments. Treatment outcomes are encouraging, but high-quality studies are lacking. Prospective studies are necessary to determine the actual utility of RRS and RSRT in pediatric neuro-oncology. Nevertheless, RRS and RSRT may be applied for selected patients.

Abstract

Background: CyberKnife-based robotic radiosurgery (RRS) is a widely used treatment modality for various benign and malignant tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) in adults due to its high precision, favorable safety profile, and efficacy. Although RRS is emerging in pediatric neuro-oncology, scientific evidence for treatment indications, treatment parameters, and patient outcomes is scarce. This systematic review summarizes the current experience and evidence for RRS and robotic stereotactic radiotherapy (RSRT) in pediatric neuro-oncology. Methods: We performed a systematic review based on the databases Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed to identify studies and published articles reporting on RRS and RSRT treatments in pediatric neuro-oncology. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were applied herein. Articles were included if they described the application of RRS and RSRT in pediatric neuro-oncological patients. The quality of the articles was assessed based on their evidence level and their risk for bias using the original as well as an adapted version of the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Only articles published until 1 August 2021, were included. Results: A total of 23 articles were included after final review and removal of duplicates. Articles reported on a broad variety of CNS entities with various treatment indications. A majority of publications lacked substantial sample sizes and a prospective study design. Several reports included adult patients, thereby limiting the possibility of data extraction and analysis of pediatric patients. RRS and RSRT were mostly used in the setting of adjuvant, palliative, and salvage treatments with decent local control rates and acceptable short-to-intermediate-term toxicity. However, follow-up durations were limited. The evidence level was IV for all studies; the NOS score ranged between four and six, while the overall risk of bias was moderate to low. Conclusion: Publications on RRS and RSRT and their application in pediatric neuro-oncology are rare and lack high-quality evidence with respect to entity-related treatment standards and long-term outcomes. The limited data suggest that RRS and RSRT could be efficient treatment modalities, especially for children who are unsuitable for surgical interventions, suffer from tumor recurrences, or require palliative treatments. Nevertheless, the potential short-term and long-term adverse events must be kept in mind when choosing such a treatment. Prospective studies are necessary to determine the actual utility of RRS and RSRT in pediatric neuro-oncology.

1. Introduction

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are well-established treatment modalities for a wide range of benign and malignant tumors [1,2]. Specifically, SRS plays a crucial role in the modern management of central nervous system (CNS) tumors [1]. Treatment algorithms and outcome data are well-reported and documented in adult patients. In the field of pediatric neuro-oncology, however, analogous data for SRS and, more specifically, robotic radiosurgery (RRS) and robotic stereotactic radiotherapy (RSRT) remain scarce [3,4,5]. So far, a limited number of radiosurgical case reports and case series are available for variable neuro-oncological entities, including ependymoma, low- and high-grade glioma, medulloblastoma, meningioma, craniopharyngioma, pituitary adenoma, pineal tumors, arteriovenous malformation, and vestibular schwannoma [3,4,5,6]. Given the frameless treatment delivery, precision, and increasing availability, RRS, and RSRT may represent valuable treatment options in managing pediatric CNS tumors. This comprehensive review aims to summarize the current findings and evidence for the use of RRS and RSRT in pediatric neuro-oncology.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search and Review

A comprehensive literature search was performed by two independent reviewers (F.E., L.-N.L.) using the databases Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [7]. Combinations of the search terms “CNS”, “brain”, and “radiosurgery”, complemented by “pediatric” or “children” and “image-guided robotic radiosurgery” or “CyberKnife” were applied without restrictive filters or limits. An additional citation search was performed amongst the articles that resulted from the initial database search. Both reviewers (F.E., L.-N.L.) independently conducted the screening, removed duplicates, excluded unsuitable articles, and agreed on the final selection of included publications. Removal of duplicates was done using EndNote 20.2 (EndNote, Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA), followed by manual verification. Reported indications, general patient characteristics, parameters pertaining to the radiosurgical procedure, as well as clinical and radiographic outcomes, including the length of follow-up, were summarized. Articles were included if they described the application of RRS or RSRT using the CyberKnife® radiosurgery system (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for CNS tumors in children, regardless of the number of actual treatments or whether they were combined studies and included outcomes for adult patients. Only articles available in English published before 1 August 2021, were considered. This review was registered (Research Registry, Research Registry Unique Identifying Number 1258).

2.2. Quality and Bias Assessment

The quality of the articles was assessed by both reviewers (F.E., L.-N.L.). Articles were evaluated according to their evidence level according to the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) and using items of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment (NOS) Scale in a modified version by Murad et al. [8,9,10,11,12]. The modification was made based on a study of Bazerbachi et al., given that there are no validated tools to assess the risk of bias (i.e., methodological quality) in case reports and case series, which they had taken into account [12]. The majority of the included studies herein were noncomparative case reports or case series, thereby preventing the application of NOS that are related to comparability and adjustment. According to Bazerbachi et al.’s protocol, this resulted in applying the NOS items that focused on selection, representativeness of cases, and ascertainment of outcome and exposure. Accordingly, we included five criteria in the form of questions with a binary response (yes/no), addressing whether the item was suggestive of bias or not [12]. We applied the same quality scale as previously described, considering the quality of the report good (low risk of bias) when all five criteria were fulfilled, moderate when four were fulfilled, and poor when three or fewer were fulfilled [12]. This review did not require an institutional review board approval given the local regulations and chosen study methodologies.

3. Results

Seventy reports were initially identified during the database searches and an additional three articles by citation searching. After removing duplicates and non-English articles, screening, and further evaluation, 30 articles remained for the eligibility assessment. In the end, 23 studies were included in the review (Figure 1). The first report, a case report of a recurrent vestibular schwannoma treated with RRS in a 13-year-old boy, was published in 2000 [13]. The latest study addressed the treatment of spinal ependymomas, included two pediatric cases, and was published in 2021 [14]. The studies reviewed herein reported on a broad variety of CNS entities, including arteriovenous malformations (AVM), neuroblastoma, ependymoma, vestibular schwannoma, chordoma, craniopharyngioma (CP), fibrosarcoma, hamartoma, pineal germinoma, pituitary adenoma, optic pathway or pilocytic glioma, Ewing sarcoma, atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT), and medulloblastoma. Notably, most studies (12 out of 23, 52%) did not exclusively report on the use of RRS in pediatric patients, significantly limiting data extraction for the respective treatments. At least 125 patients with approximately 142 treatments were summarized in the reviewed articles. In five studies (22%), at least one pediatric patient was included without dedicated information about the actual number of patients and RRS or RSRT treatments [15,16,17,18,19]. More extensive series on RRS were scarce, and the available data was mostly limited to case reports and smaller case series (Table 1). Sample sizes of the studies varied from case reports with a single patient (n = 5) to clinical articles including up to 52 pediatric patients [20]. The age of treated pediatric patients ranged from four months to 23 years. The age limit in most of the dedicated pediatric studies was defined as <18 years. However, two studies included patients older than 18 years.

3.1. Treatment Indications, Parameters, and Outcomes

The most common indications of RRS and RSRT were recurrences, adjuvant, and salvage treatments, with primary treatments only being reported in a minority of studies. Dosimetric analyses of the studies revealed that most treatments utilized RRS, with up to five fractions. However, the largest series of 52 patients of Mohamad et al. applied RSRT using 25 to 33 fractions to irradiate craniopharyngiomas, ependymomas, and low-grade gliomas [20]. In this study, margin-free RSRT was mostly used for adjuvant treatments in a pediatric patient cohort with well-demarcated brain tumors. Thirty representative cases were also planned with conventional intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) with subsequent comparison of the dosimetric plans. RSRT plans showed superior dosimetry with a significant reduction in both the high and intermediate dose regions. Concerning the clinical and radiographic outcomes, a 3-year local control (LC) of 92% was achieved. The observed toxicity was limited to transient perilesional edema in 33% of patients, whereas 7 of 16 CP patients suffered from cystic lesion enlargement requiring further interventions [20]. Another extensive report was published in 2005 by Giller et al., describing outcomes of 38 treatments in 21 pediatric patients with unresectable brain tumors [21]. Irradiated entities included astrocytoma, ependymoma, medulloblastoma, ATRT, and craniopharyngioma [21]. This series also showed a decent LC in all reported entities, with most treatments delivered in just one session [21]. In four patients, who were aggressively treated due to their progressive disease, radionecrosis was observed, with one patient becoming symptomatic [21]. This report did not describe any further adverse events.
The case reports summarized herein are comparable in terms of tumor entities, indication, and dosimetric parameters to the larger reports of Mohamad et al. and Giller et al., reporting on very specific, individual treatments [20,21]. For example, Romanelli reported two cases of pediatric patients suffering from unresectable hypothalamic hamartomas causing severe, daily gelastic, and generalized tonic-clonic seizures [22]. Despite intensive usage of up to five antiepileptic drugs, seizure control remained poor [22]. In an attempt to reduce seizure frequency and severity, the eight- and nine-year-old children underwent single-session RRS. Eighteen and 36 months after treatment, respectively, both patients started to remain seizure-free for the available follow-up of 10 and 9 years [22]. Discontinuation of antiepileptic medication started two and three years after RRS, respectively [22]. No treatment-related toxicity was observed. This is one of the available case reports and series demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of RRS in selected patients.
Table
Table 1. Table summarizing the current literature on RRS and RSRT in pediatric CNS pathologies, indicating the number of pediatric patients reported, diagnosis, treatment indication and parameters as well as their clinical and radiographic outcome. Abbreviations: ATRT (atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor), AVM (arteriovenous malformation), DF (distant failure), EP (ependymoma), EW (Ewing sarcoma), f (female), FU (follow-up), Gy (Gray), LF (local failure), m (male), MB (medulloblastoma), n.a. (not assessed/assessable), LGG (low grade glioma), OPG (optic pathway glioma), TX (therapy), cc (cubic centimeters). * Publication including only pediatric patients.
Table 1. Table summarizing the current literature on RRS and RSRT in pediatric CNS pathologies, indicating the number of pediatric patients reported, diagnosis, treatment indication and parameters as well as their clinical and radiographic outcome. Abbreviations: ATRT (atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor), AVM (arteriovenous malformation), DF (distant failure), EP (ependymoma), EW (Ewing sarcoma), f (female), FU (follow-up), Gy (Gray), LF (local failure), m (male), MB (medulloblastoma), n.a. (not assessed/assessable), LGG (low grade glioma), OPG (optic pathway glioma), TX (therapy), cc (cubic centimeters). * Publication including only pediatric patients.
AuthorYearNumber of pediatric patients (total patients)Age (years)GenderTumor entityTreatment indication Mean FU (months)Mean survival (months)Dose (Gy) Fractions (n)Prescription isodose line (%)Volume (cc)Clinical outcomeRadiographic outcome
Ehret et al. [14]20212 (12)<18n.a.Spinal ependymomaAdjuvant TX; recurrencen.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.
Mohamad et al. * [20]2020529.9 (range 1.1–23.2)f (23); m (29)Craniopharyngioma; ependymoma; LGGPrimary TX; adjuvant TX44.436 (OS 100% at 3 years)45 to 60 25–3384 (range 52–91)10.3 (1.1–38.1)n.a.Resolution /decrease (37); stable tumor (14); tumor progression (1)
Shi et al. * [23]201911 (21)3 (mean); range 0–19n.a.Intracranial and spinal ependymomasAdjuvant; salvage TX54 median (range 2–157)n.a18–20 1–5n.a.n.a.In children: Radiation toxicity (2), death (1)Overall LF after 2-years 18.5%; DF after 2 years 33.8%
Fadel et al. [24]201928; 10m (1); f (1)Intracranial oculomotor nerve schwannomasPrimary TX57n.a.45–5025n.a.0.1; 0.2 Neurologically stableDecrease in tumor volume (1)
Romanelli et al. * [22]201828; 9n.a.Hypothalamic hamartomaRefractory medical TX36; 42n.a.16 (max dose 24.43; 22.85) 165; 701.1; 0.89 Seizure freedom at last FUTransient focal edema
Kalani et al. [19]2016≥1 (37)≥9n.a.Spinal cord arteriovenous malformationsPrimary TX; second line TX n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.an.a.
Nanda et al. * [25]201455.7 (range 2.7–11.3)n.a.EP (2), MB (1); ATRT (1); EW (1)Recurrence; palliative TX22.8 (range 1–45)22.8 (range 1–45)15–21 4.4 (range 1–10)n.a.0.08 to 51.67 Alive (2); death (3)TX failure: in field (3); distant (2)
Susheela et al. * [26]2013112m (1); f (0)Hypothalamic hamartomaRefractory medical TX17n.a.3058548.3 Seizure freedom Transient focal edema
Uslu et al. * [27]2013111m (0); f (1)OPGPrimary TX17n.a.215835.2 Minimal radiation effects: conjunctivitis, dry eyesDecrease of tumor volume
Lo et al. * [28]201318 monthsmInfantile fibrosarcoma spinal metastasisConcomitant with CTX33n.a.264758.8StableTumor size reduction of 23%
Iwata et al. [18]2012≥1 (43)≥3n.a.CraniopharyngiomaInoperabilty; adjuvant TX; recurrencen.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.
Jiang et al. [29]20123 (20)10; 12; 17m (3); f (0)ChordomaRecurrence21.3n.a.30; 25; 37.55 (3)75; 80; 8017.4; 10.4; 2.4Death (2); neurological improvement (1)Tumor size reduction (1)
Chen et al. * [30]201213m (1); f (0)Neuroblastoma metastasisNew intracranial metastasis6n.a215n.a.n.a.Neurological and hearing improvementDecrease of tumor size
Peugniez et al. * [31]201058.2 (range 8–10)f (1); m (4)OPG (2); Pineal germinoma (1); MB (1); EW (1)Residual; recurrence8.6 (range 6–12)n.a.36.4 (range 19.8–50.4) 22.8 (range 11–28)n.a.n.a.Stable disease (3); progressive disease (2)n.a.
Colombo et al. [32]20092 (279)12; 12m (0); f (2)AVMnot specifiedn.a.n.a.24; 25 1n.a.2.2; 2.8 n.a.n.a.
Coppa et al. [15]2009≥1 (31)11n.a.Malignant skull base tumors Recurrence; inoperabilityn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.
Gagnon et al. [17]2009≥1 (200)3n.a.Benign and malignant spinal tumorsPrimary TX; adjuvant TX; recurrencen.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.
Lee et al. [33]20083 (11)13; 16; 17m (0); f (3)CraniopharyngiomaResidual; recurrencen.a.n.a.19.5; 20; 27.5 3; 4; 5 80; 77; 71 12.7; 1.2; 10.1Stablen.a.
Dodd et al. [16]2006≥1 (51)12n.a.Benign spine tumorsRecurrence; residual tumor; inoperabilityn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.
Giller et al. * [21]200521 (38 treatments)8 months to 16 years (mean 7± 5.1 years; median 6 years)m (8); f (13)Various brain tumorsInoperability; unresponsiveness to standard TX; focal recurrence or residual18 ± 11 (range 1–40)21 ± 11 (range 1–40)18.8 ± 8.1 (range 9.2–50, median 17) 1 (27); 3–5 (8); conventional (3)57 ± 9.7 (range 35–90; median 60)10.7 ± 20 (range 0.06–103)Death (6)Reported per entity
Kajiwara et al. [34]20052 (21)11; 11m (0); f (2)Pituitary adenomaSecond line TX55n.a.9.44; 27 3n.a.7.0; 0.2 Hypopituitarism (1)Partial response; no change
Giller et al. * [35]200454 months; 7 months; 11 months; 1 year; 2.5 years; m (1); f (4)Malignant brain tumorsSalvage TX; concomitant11 ± 7 (range 5–23)n.a.17 ± 2 (range 15 – 24)1 (1), 4 (1), 5 (3)45 to 6518 ± 22 Death (2)Decrease in lesional size (2), local recurrence (1), distant metastasis (2)
Harada et al. * [13]2000113mAcoustic schwannomaSalvage TX after 3rd recurrence n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.15n.a.n.a.
In summary, applied doses, used prescription isodose lines, and fractions among the reviewed studies herein were particularly heterogeneous (Table 1). This was also the case for the treated tumor volumes, given the various indications and tumor entities. However, the reported clinical and radiographical outcomes were equally rated as favorable in the majority of the case reports. A detailed overview of the included studies is provided in Table 1.

3.2. Quality and Bias Assessment

The quality of the articles was assessed according to their level of evidence developed by the CEBM for treatment and with the NOS, when applicable. All reviewed studies provided scientific reporting on an evidence level of IV. We considered 13 articles eligible for the NOS based on their patient numbers, excluding case reports and smaller case series. In these studies, the NOS ranged between four and six stars, including nine articles receiving six (69%), three receiving five (23%), and one receiving four stars (8%), respectively. Notably, none of the studies were eligible for stars in the comparability section as they lacked control groups or cohorts. Therefore, an additional rating system, which was proposed as a modified version of the NOS, was applied for assessing the risk of bias in the included studies (Table 2) [12]. Fourteen out of 23 studies had a low risk of bias, followed by seven with a moderate and two with a high risk. The main sources for introducing bias were the exclusion of differential diagnosis, the lack of data citation, and comprehensive outcome reporting (Table 2).

4. Discussion

Radiotherapy plays an essential role in the treatment of various pediatric brain tumors [36,37,38,39]. As a specific subtype of radiotherapy, SRS can deliver highly conformal irradiations with steep dose gradients, ultimately preventing organs at risk and healthy tissue from radiation [40]. Notably, RRS as a frameless, image-guided radiosurgical treatment technique may effectively reduce high-dose exposure to adjacent healthy tissue [41]. However, its application has mainly been investigated and reported in adult neuro-oncology. Despite its benefits in adult patients, data, studies, and clinical trials for SRS and, more specifically, RRS as well as RSRT, in pediatric patients remain scarce [3,4].
This systematic review had the objective to assess the current literature on RRS and RSRT in pediatric neuro-oncological patients, with a particular focus on treated tumor entities, fractionation schemes, and outcomes. Given the general data available on SRS for pediatric brain tumors, a significant degree of data heterogeneity and overall limited sample sizes are apparent [3,4]. These findings were also confirmed for RRS in the review herein: radiosurgical treatments are mostly used as an adjunct in the multimodal treatment of brain tumors. Its applications are currently reserved for adjuvant, salvage, and palliative treatments, as well as for unresectable tumors or tumor remnants. Despite the data heterogeneity and small cohorts, included RRS and RSRT studies showed favorable results for the various reported neuro-oncological treatments. Lo et al. and Murphy et al. already addressed various advantages and disadvantages of SRS in the setting of pediatric neuro-oncology [3,4]. In general, the dosimetric advantages and time-saving treatment delivery of SRS are particularly helpful treating well-demarcated lesions. This also applies to RRS [20,21]. Moreover, the non-invasive, frameless treatment technique of RRS and other SRS techniques is another aspect of highest importance, especially in children, as it does not require rigid fixation, which subsequently allows a reduction of general anesthesia procedures compared to other radiation techniques [4,21,25,35,42]. This setting frames the potential role of SRS, including RRS, in the management of pediatric brain tumors. Entities and lesions such as vestibular schwannomas, pituitary adenomas, meningiomas, neurocytoma, and small metastases may be effectively addressed with this treatment modality [3,4,21,35,43]. Similar to adults, recent data also suggest AVMs to be a suitable pediatric SRS target [6,44]. In contrast, diffuse tumor growth usually dictates other treatment options, such as surgery or fractionated radiotherapy. The latter may also be delivered utilizing RSRT based on the large series of Mohamad et al., showing promising results and favorable dosimetric profiles compared to conventional IMRT [20]. However, only well-demarcated targets have been included in this analysis. Nevertheless, these first hypothesis-generating results open room for further investigations utilizing the highly conformal treatments with RSRT in children. Prospectively comparing those findings to IMRT or proton radiotherapy could help to refine neuro-oncological treatments and identify potential patient cohorts or entities, which profit from such treatment techniques [45].
In this regard, treatment-related complications and adverse events (AE) play a crucial role in children, especially when evaluating an emerging radiation technique [46]. Numerous studies have demonstrated the manifold short-term and long-term complications of CNS irradiations in pediatric patients, ranging from symptomatic radiation necrosis, cognitive deficits, growth abnormalities, and endocrinological disorders to secondary malignancies in survivors [21,39,47,48,49]. Potential approaches to prevent such sequelae include the reduction of treatment volumes, margins, and applied doses [39]. While the first two points may be efficiently implemented with RRS due to the underlying dosimetric characteristics, the latter remains the subject of further investigations, especially for fractionated radiotherapy or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, whereas in SRS, locally ablative doses are an essential part of the treatment modality [39]. Therefore, the risk for radiation necrosis should be considered when choosing the radiation treatment modality [21]. Carefully balancing treatment aggressiveness with the risk of potentially devastating adverse events depending on the patients’ disease, life expectancy, and performance status is a crucial objective in pediatric neuro-oncology and is mainly guided by entity-specific treatment protocols and interdisciplinary tumor boards.
Considering the current evidence for RRS and RSRT, we suggest their application in selected pediatric patients and in accordance with the local treatment protocols or after agreement with an interdisciplinary neuro-oncological tumor board. Furthermore, treatments should be carried out by experienced radiation oncologists or neurosurgeons and include a dedicated long-term follow-up with repeated neuropsychological testing and imaging. To enhance the availability of data concerning the efficacy and safety of RRS and RSRT in pediatric neuro-oncology, a national registry was recently initiated at our institution [50]. Given the imbalance of scientific evidence between adult and pediatric RRS and RSRT treatments, it aims to fill the current knowledge gaps on the pediatric side, hoping that the obtained results may contribute to the quality improvement of radiosurgical treatments in pediatric neuro-oncology. In summary, RRS represents a viable and versatile tool for the treatment of brain and spine lesions. However, the evidence for its usage in pediatric neuro-oncology remains limited and on a descriptive level. This is highlighted by the lack of randomized trials and low evidence levels of available analyses. Current reports lack the sample sizes, comparability, and standardization to draw firm conclusions. The articles demonstrated a moderate to low risk of bias and showed encouraging outcome results and confirmation of tolerability and feasibility in children. Collaborative efforts are necessary to determine the potential role of RRS and RSRT in pediatric neuro-oncology.

5. Conclusions

RRS and its applications in pediatric neuro-oncology have rarely been reported thus far. The limited data suggest that RRS and RSRT could be efficient treatment modalities, especially for children who are unsuitable for surgical interventions, suffer from tumor recurrences, or require palliative treatments. Nevertheless, the potential short-term and long-term adverse events must be kept in mind when choosing such a treatment. Further studies of prospective nature are necessary to determine the actual utility and safety profile of RRS and RSRT in pediatric neuro-oncology.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.E. and L.-N.L.; Methodology, F.E. and L.-N.L.; Literature search and review, F.E. and L.-N.L.; Writing—original draft preparation, F.E. and L.-N.L.; Writing—review and editing, F.E., D.K., V.B. and L.-N.L.; Visualization, F.E. and L.-N.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Open Access Publication Fund of Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin. F.E. is participant in the BIH Charité Junior Clinician Scientist Program funded by the Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health at Charité (BIH).

Conflicts of Interest

F.E. reports honoraria from Accuray outside the submitted work.

References

  1. Fatima, N.; Meola, A.; Ding, V.Y.; Pollom, E.; Soltys, S.G.; Chuang, C.F.; Shahsavari, N.; Hancock, S.L.; Gibbs, I.C.; Adler, J.R.; et al. The Stanford stereotactic radiosurgery experience on 7000 patients over 2 decades (1999–2018): Looking far beyond the scalpel. J. Neurosurg. 2021, 135, 1725–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Chen, H.; Louie, A.V.; Higginson, D.S.; Palma, D.A.; Colaco, R.; Sahgal, A. Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in the Management of Oligometastatic Disease. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 32, 713–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Murphy, E.S.; Chao, S.T.; Angelov, L.; Vogelbaum, M.A.; Barnett, G.; Jung, E.; Recinos, V.R.; Mohammadi, A.; Suh, J.H. Radiosurgery for Pediatric Brain Tumors. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2015, 63, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lo, S.S.; Fakiris, A.J.; Abdulrahman, R.; Henderson, M.A.; Chang, E.L.; Suh, J.H.; Timmerman, R.D. Role of stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in pediatric brain tumors. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2008, 8, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Suh, J.H.; Barnett, G.H. Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain tumors in pediatric patients. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2003, 2, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Chen, C.J.; Lee, C.C.; Kano, H.; Kearns, K.N.; Ding, D.; Tzeng, S.W.; Atik, A.F.; Joshi, K.; Huang, P.P.; Kondziolka, D.; et al. Radiosurgery for Unruptured Intervention-Naïve Pediatric Brain Arteriovenous Malformations. Neurosurgery 2020, 87, 368–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wells, G.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analysis. 2011. Available online: http://www3.med.unipmn.it/dispense_ebm/2009-2010/Corso%20Perfezionamento%20EBM_Faggiano/NOS_oxford.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2021).
  9. OCEBM. The Oxford 2009 Levels of Evidence; OCEBM: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Murad, M.H.; Sultan, S.; Haffar, S.; Bazerbachi, F. Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ Evid.-Based Med. 2018, 23, 60–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Haffar, S.; Bazerbachi, F.; Prokop, L.; Watt, K.D.; Murad, M.H.; Chari, S.T. Frequency and prognosis of acute pancreatitis associated with fulminant or non-fulminant acute hepatitis A: A systematic review. Pancreatology 2017, 17, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bazerbachi, F.; Leise, M.D.; Watt, K.D.; Murad, M.H.; Prokop, L.J.; Haffar, S. Systematic review of mixed cryoglobulinemia associated with hepatitis E virus infection: Association or causation? Gastroenterol. Rep. 2017, 5, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Harada, K.; Nishizaki, T.; Adachi, N.; Suzuki, M.; Ito, H. Pediatric acoustic schwannoma showing rapid regrowth with high proliferative activity. Childs Nerv. Syst. 2000, 16, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ehret, F.; Kufeld, M.; Fürweger, C.; Haidenberger, A.; Windisch, P.; Senger, C.; Kord, M.; Träger, M.; Kaul, D.; Schichor, C.; et al. Image-Guided Robotic Radiosurgery for the Management of Spinal Ependymomas. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 654251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Coppa, N.D.; Raper, D.M.; Zhang, Y.; Collins, B.T.; Harter, K.W.; Gagnon, G.J.; Collins, S.P.; Jean, W.C. Treatment of malignant tumors of the skull base with multi-session radiosurgery. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2009, 2, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Dodd, R.L.; Ryu, M.R.; Kamnerdsupaphon, P.; Gibbs, I.C.; Chang, S.D., Jr.; Adler, J.R., Jr. CyberKnife radiosurgery for benign intradural extramedullary spinal tumors. Neurosurgery 2006, 58, 674–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gagnon, G.J.; Nasr, N.M.; Liao, J.J.; Molzahn, I.; Marsh, D.; McRae, D.; Henderson, F.C., Sr. Treatment of spinal tumors using cyberknife fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery: Pain and quality-of-life assessment after treatment in 200 patients. Neurosurgery 2009, 64, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Iwata, H.; Tatewaki, K.; Inoue, M.; Yokota, N.; Baba, Y.; Nomura, R.; Shibamoto, Y.; Sato, K. Single and hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy with CyberKnife for craniopharyngioma. J. Neurooncol. 2012, 106, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kalani, M.A.; Choudhri, O.; Gibbs, I.C.; Soltys, S.G.; Adler, J.R.; Thompson, P.A.; Tayag, A.T.; Samos, C.H.; Chang, S.D. Stereotactic radiosurgery for intramedullary spinal arteriovenous malformations. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2016, 29, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mohamad, O.; Wardak, Z.; Bowers, D.C.; Le, A.H.; Dan, T.; Abdulrahman, R.; Gargan, L.; Klesse, L.; Weprin, B.; Swift, D.; et al. Margin-Free Fractionated Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Pediatric Brain Tumors. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 10, e485–e494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Giller, C.A.; Berger, B.D.; Pistenmaa, D.A.; Sklar, F.; Weprin, B.; Shapiro, K.; Winick, N.; Mulne, A.F.; Delp, J.L.; Gilio, J.P.; et al. Robotically guided radiosurgery for children. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2005, 45, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Romanelli, P. CyberKnife(R) Radiosurgery as First-line Treatment for Catastrophic Epilepsy Caused by Hypothalamic Hamartoma. Cureus 2018, 10, e2968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Shi, S.; Jin, M.C.; Koenig, J.; Gibbs, I.C.; Soltys, S.G.; Chang, S.D.; Li, G.; Hayden Gephart, M.; Hiniker, S.M.; Pollom, E.L. Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Pediatric and Adult Intracranial and Spinal Ependymomas. Stereotact. Funct. Neurosurg. 2019, 97, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fadel, H.A.; El Ahmadieh, T.Y.; Plitt, A.R.; Neeley, O.J.; Johnson, Z.; Aoun, S.G.; Mohamad, O.; Timmerman, R.; Weprin, B.E. Oculomotor Schwannomas: A Systematic Review and Report of Two Pediatric Cases Treated with Fractionated Cyberknife Stereotactic Radiotherapy. World Neurosurg. 2019, 129, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nanda, R.; Dhabbaan, A.; Janss, A.; Shu, H.K.; Esiashvili, N. The feasibility of frameless stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of pediatric central nervous system tumors. J. Neurooncol. 2014, 117, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Susheela, S.P.; Revannasiddaiah, S.; Mallarajapatna, G.J.; Basavalingaiah, A. Robotic-arm stereotactic radiosurgery as a definitive treatment for gelastic epilepsy associated with hypothalamic hamartoma. BMJ Case Rep. 2013, 2013, bcr2013200538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Uslu, N.; Karakaya, E.; Dizman, A.; Yegen, D.; Guney, Y. Optic nerve glioma treatment with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2013, 11, 596–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Lo, C.H.; Cheng, S.N.; Lin, K.T.; Jen, Y.M. Successful treatment of infantile fibrosarcoma spinal metastasis by chemotherapy and stereotactic hypofractionated radiotherapy. J. Korean Neurosurg. Soc. 2013, 54, 528–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Jiang, B.; Veeravagu, A.; Lee, M.; Harsh, G.R.; Lieberson, R.E.; Bhatti, I.; Soltys, S.G.; Gibbs, I.C.; Adler, J.R.; Chang, S.D. Management of intracranial and extracranial chordomas with CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2012, 19, 1101–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chen, C.M.; Chang, H.H.; Lin, K.H.; Lin, D.T.; Peng, S.S.; Young, Y.H. Functional recovery of cranial nerves VII and VIII after hypofractionated CyberKnife radiosurgery in a neuroblastoma patient with cerebellopontine angle metastasis-Case report. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2012, 114, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Peugniez, C.; Dewas, S.; Coche-Dequeant, B.; Leblond, P.; Defachelles, A.S.; Thebaud, E.; Lacornerie, T.; Lartigau, E. Use of conventional fractionation with cyberknife in children: A report of 5 cases. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 2010, 32, 472–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Colombo, F.; Cavedon, C.; Casentini, L.; Francescon, P.; Causin, F.; Pinna, V. Early results of CyberKnife radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations. J. Neurosurg. 2009, 111, 807–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lee, M.; Kalani, M.Y.; Cheshier, S.; Gibbs, I.C.; Adler, J.R.; Chang, S.D. Radiation therapy and CyberKnife radiosurgery in the management of craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg. Focus 2008, 24, E4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kajiwara, K.; Saito, K.; Yoshikawa, K.; Kato, S.; Akimura, T.; Nomura, S.; Ishihara, H.; Suzuki, M. Image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery with the CyberKnife for pituitary adenomas. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2005, 48, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Giller, C.A.; Berger, B.D.; Gilio, J.P.; Delp, J.L.; Gall, K.P.; Weprin, B.; Bowers, D. Feasibility of radiosurgery for malignant brain tumors in infants by use of image-guided robotic radiosurgery: Preliminary report. Neurosurgery 2004, 55, 916–924; discussion 924–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rudà, R.; Reifenberger, G.; Frappaz, D.; Pfister, S.M.; Laprie, A.; Santarius, T.; Roth, P.; Tonn, J.C.; Soffietti, R.; Weller, M.; et al. EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of ependymal tumors. Neuro Oncol. 2018, 20, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Bindra, R.S.; Wolden, S.L. Advances in Radiation Therapy in Pediatric Neuro-oncology. J. Child Neurol. 2016, 31, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ludmir, E.B.; Grosshans, D.R.; Woodhouse, K.D. Radiotherapy Advances in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology. Bioengineering 2018, 5, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Knab, B.; Connell, P.P. Radiotherapy for pediatric brain tumors: When and how. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2007, 7, S69–S77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kondziolka, D. Current and novel practice of stereotactic radiosurgery. J. Neurosurg. 2019, 130, 1789–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lin, M.-H.; Yang, M.; Dougherty, J.; Tasson, A.; Zhang, Y.; Mohamad, O.; Dan, T.; Yan, Y.; Gu, X.; Timmerman, R.; et al. Radiation Therapy for Pediatric Brain Tumors using Robotic Radiation Delivery System and Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2020, 10, e173–e182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rowe, L.S.; Krauze, A.V.; Ning, H.; Camphausen, K.A.; Kaushal, A. Optimizing the Benefit of CNS Radiation Therapy in the Pediatric Population-PART 2: Novel Methods of Radiation Delivery. Oncology 2017, 31, 224–226. [Google Scholar]
  43. Phi, J.H.; Kim, D.G. Rare pediatric central neurocytomas. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2015, 26, 105–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chen, C.J.; Lee, C.C.; Kano, H.; Kearns, K.N.; Ding, D.; Tzeng, S.W.; Atik, A.; Joshi, K.; Barnett, G.H.; Huang, P.P.; et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for pediatric brain arteriovenous malformations: Long-term outcomes. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2020, 25, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Carbonara, R.; Di Rito, A.; Monti, A.; Rubini, G.; Sardaro, A. Proton versus Photon Radiotherapy for Pediatric Central Nervous System Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Dosimetric Comparison Studies. J. Oncol. 2019, 2019, 5879723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Steinmeier, T.; Schulze Schleithoff, S.; Timmermann, B. Evolving Radiotherapy Techniques in Paediatric Oncology. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 31, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Mulhern, R.K.; Merchant, T.E.; Gajjar, A.; Reddick, W.E.; Kun, L.E. Late neurocognitive sequelae in survivors of brain tumours in childhood. Lancet Oncol. 2004, 5, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Morris, E.B.; Gajjar, A.; Okuma, J.O.; Yasui, Y.; Wallace, D.; Kun, L.E.; Merchant, T.E.; Fouladi, M.; Broniscer, A.; Robison, L.L.; et al. Survival and late mortality in long-term survivors of pediatric CNS tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 1532–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gunn, M.E.; Malila, N.; Lähdesmäki, T.; Arola, M.; Grönroos, M.; Matomäki, J.; Lähteenmäki, P.M. Late new morbidity in survivors of adolescent and young-adulthood brain tumors in Finland: A registry-based study. Neuro Oncol. 2015, 17, 1412–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Lohkamp, L.N.; Grün, A.; Dengler, J.; Vajkoczy, P.; Budach, V.; Kufeld, M. The rationale and development of a CyberKnife© registry for pediatric patients with CNS lesions. Childs Nerv. Syst. 2021, 37, 871–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 14 01085 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the article selection process according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the article selection process according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
Cancers 14 01085 g001
Table
Table 2. Table illustrating the current literature on RRS and RSRT in pediatric CNS pathologies, including the article type, the level of evidence, as well as the quality based on the original and modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale NOS) [12]. Questions 1–5 comprise the tool for risk of bias assessment for case reports and case series: (1) Did the patient(s) represent the whole case(s) of the medical center? (The studies did not mention whether the reported patient(s) represented the whole case(s) of the medical center and we assumed that the authors have reported all the cases in their center giving the rarity of this association.) (2) Was the diagnosis correctly made? (3) Were other important diagnoses excluded? (4) Were all important data cited in the report? (5) Was the outcome correctly ascertained?
Table 2. Table illustrating the current literature on RRS and RSRT in pediatric CNS pathologies, including the article type, the level of evidence, as well as the quality based on the original and modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale NOS) [12]. Questions 1–5 comprise the tool for risk of bias assessment for case reports and case series: (1) Did the patient(s) represent the whole case(s) of the medical center? (The studies did not mention whether the reported patient(s) represented the whole case(s) of the medical center and we assumed that the authors have reported all the cases in their center giving the rarity of this association.) (2) Was the diagnosis correctly made? (3) Were other important diagnoses excluded? (4) Were all important data cited in the report? (5) Was the outcome correctly ascertained?
AuthorYearArticle typeEvidence levelNOS ScaleModified NOS
Selection (★/4)Comparability (★/2)Exposure/Outcome (★/3)Total (9★)CompletenessCorrect diagnosisDifferential DiagnosisCitation of dataOutcomeRisk of bias
Ehret et al.2021Research articleIV3/40/23/36/9yesyesyesyesyeslow
Mohamed et al. *2020Original articleIV3/40/23/36/9yesyesyesyesyeslow
Shi et al. *2019Clinical articleIV3/40/23/36/9yesyesyesyesyeslow
Fadel et al. 2019Literature review with case seriesIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yesyes (presumed)noyesyesmoderate
Romanelli et al. *2018Case seriesIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yesyesyesyesyeslow
Kalani et al.2016Clinical articleIV2/40/23/35/9yesyesyesyesyeslow
Nanda et al. *2014Case seriesIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yes (presumed)yesyesyesyeslow
Susheela et al. *2013Case reportIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yesyesyesyesyeslow
Uslu et al. *2013Case reportIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yesyes (presumed)noyesyesmoderate
Lo et al. *2013Case reportIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yesyesyesyesyeslow
Iwata et al.2012Clinical articleIV3/40/23/36/9yesyesyesyesyeslow
Jiang et al.2012Clinical articleIV3/40/23/36/9yesyesyesyesyeslow
Chen et al. *2012Case reportIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yesyes (presumed)noyesyesmoderate
Peugniez et al. *2010Case seriesIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yesyesyesnonohigh
Colombo et al.2009Clinical articleIV3/40/23/36/9noyesyesyesyeslow
Coppa et al. 2009Research articleIV3/40/23/36/9yesyesyesyesyeslow
Gagnon et al.2009Clinical articleIV3/40/23/36/9yesyesyesyesyeslow
Lee et al.2008Clinical articleIV3/40/21/34/9yesyesyesnoyesmoderate
Dodd et al. 2006Clinical articleIV3/40/22/35/9yesyes (presumed)noyesyesmoderate
Giller et al. *2005Clinical articleIV2/40/23/35/9yesyesyesnoyesmoderate
Kajiwara et al.2005Clinical articleIV3/40/23/36/9yesyesyesyesyeslow
Giller et al. * 2004Technical report with case seriesIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yes (presumed)yesyesnoyesmoderate
Harada et al. 2000Case reportIVn.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.yesyesyesnonohigh
* Publication including only pediatric patients.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ehret, F.; Kaul, D.; Budach, V.; Lohkamp, L.-N. Applications of Frameless Image-Guided Robotic Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology: A Systematic Review. Cancers 2022, 14, 1085. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cancers14041085

AMA Style

Ehret F, Kaul D, Budach V, Lohkamp L-N. Applications of Frameless Image-Guided Robotic Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology: A Systematic Review. Cancers. 2022; 14(4):1085. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cancers14041085

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ehret, Felix, David Kaul, Volker Budach, and Laura-Nanna Lohkamp. 2022. "Applications of Frameless Image-Guided Robotic Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology: A Systematic Review" Cancers 14, no. 4: 1085. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cancers14041085

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop