Risk for leptomeningeal seeding after resection for brain metastases: implication of tumor location with mode of resection

Clinical article

Restricted access

Object

Surgical spillage has been one of the causative factors for the development of leptomeningeal seeding (LMS) after resection of brain metastases. In this paper, the authors' goal was to define the factors related to the development of LMS and to evaluate the difference according to tumor location.

Methods

The authors retrospectively analyzed 242 patients who had undergone resection for brain metastases. The factors investigated included tumor location with proximity to the CSF pathway (that is, contacting, involved with, or separated from the CSF pathway), the method of resection, and the use of the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA).

Results

A total of 39 patients (16%) developed LMS at a median of 6.0 months (range 1–42 months) after resection. The risk of developing LMS was significantly higher in patients whose tumors were resected piecemeal than in those whose tumors were removed en bloc, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 4.08 (p < 0.01). The incidence of LMS was significantly higher in patients in whom the CUSA was used, and the HR was 2.64 (p < 0.01). The proximity of tumor to the CSF pathway in the involved group conferred an increased risk of LMS compared with the separated group (HR 11.36, p < 0.01). The risk of piecemeal resection for LMS was significant only in involved lesions (p < 0.01), and the use of the CUSA in both contact and involved lesions increased the incidence of LMS (p < 0.01 and p < 0.03, respectively).

Conclusions

The authors suggest that piecemeal resection using the CUSA should be limited because of the risk of postsurgical LMS, especially when the tumor is in contact with the CSF pathway.

Abbreviations used in this paper:CUSA = Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator; LMC = leptomeningeal carcinomatosis; LMS = leptomeningeal seeding; NSCLC = non–small cell lung cancer; SCLC = small cell lung cancer; WBRT = whole-brain radiotherapy.

Article Information

Address correspondence to: Ho-Shin Gwak, M.D., Ph.D., Neuro-Oncology Clinic, National Cancer Center, Korea, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do 410-769, Republic of Korea. email: halodoc@naver.com.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online February 17, 2012; DOI: 10.3171/2012.1.JNS111560.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Classification of metastatic brain lesions according to their proximity to the CSF pathway. A and B: “Separated” lesions are those in which the entire margin of the lesion is surrounded by brain parenchyma. C and D: Lesions without intervening brain parenchyma between their margin and the pial surface (C) or ventricle wall (D) are defined as “contact” lesions. E and F: If the lesions show Gd enhancement of the pia mater (E) or ventricular wall (F), which is in continuity with the mass lesion, the lesion is designated as “involved.”

  • View in gallery

    Kaplan-Meier curve for time to development of LMS after resection of brain metastases plotted for 244 patients in our study. The y axis represents the proportion of patients without LMS at each follow-up time on the x axis.

  • View in gallery

    Kaplan-Meier curves for time to development of LMS after resection of brain metastases according to proximity to the CSF pathway. Patients whose tumors were in contact (n = 43) or involved (n = 116) with the CSF pathway had a greater risk for developing LMS than patients whose tumors were separated from the pathway (n = 74), as evidenced by the Cox proportional hazard model (HR 7.36 [95% CI 1.56–34.7], p = 0.01; and HR 11.36 [95% CI 2.71–47.7], p < 0.01, respectively).

  • View in gallery

    Kaplan-Meier curves for time to development of LMS after resection of brain metastases according to the mode of resection. The y axis represents the proportion of patients without LMS at each follow-up time on the x axis. Patients who underwent piecemeal resection (n = 155) had a greater risk of developing LMS than those who underwent en bloc resection (n = 87) (HR estimated by the Cox proportional hazard model 4.08 [95% CI 1.38–5.04], p < 0.01).

References

1

Chamberlain MC: Leptomeningeal metastases: a review of evaluation and treatment. J Neurooncol 37:2712841998

2

DeAngelis LM: Current diagnosis and treatment of leptomeningeal metastasis. J Neurooncol 38:2452521998

3

DeAngelis LMMandell LRThaler HTKimmel DWGalicich JHFuks Z: The role of postoperative radiotherapy after resection of single brain metastases. Neurosurgery 24:7988051989

4

Dosoretz DEBlitzer PHRussell AHWang CC: Management of solitary metastasis to the brain: the role of elective brain irradiation following complete surgical resection. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 6:172717301980

5

Folkman J: Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N Engl J Med 285:118211861971

6

Fortner JG: Inadvertent spread of cancer at surgery. J Surg Oncol 53:1911961993

7

Freilich RJKrol GDeAngelis LM: Neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid cytology in the diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastasis. Ann Neurol 38:51571995

8

Grabb PAAlbright ALPang D: Dissemination of supratentorial malignant gliomas via the cerebrospinal fluid in children. Neurosurgery 30:64711992

9

Kalkanis SNKondziolka DGaspar LEBurri SHAsher ALCobbs CS: The role of surgical resection in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol 96:33432010

10

Kitaoka KAbe HAida TSatoh MItoh TNakagawa Y: Follow-up study on metastatic cerebellar tumor surgery—characteristic problems of surgical treatment. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 30:5915981990

11

Mayo WJ: Grafting and traumatic dissemination of carcinoma in course of operations for malignant disease. JAMA 60:5125131913

12

Mirimanoff ROChoi NC: Intradural spinal metastases in patients with posterior fossa brain metastases from various primary cancers. Oncology 44:2322361987

13

Norris LKGrossman SAOlivi A: Neoplastic meningitis following surgical resection of isolated cerebellar metastasis: a potentially preventable complication. J Neurooncol 32:2152231997

14

Olson MEChernik NLPosner JB: Infiltration of the leptomeninges by systemic cancer. A clinical and pathologic study. Arch Neurol 30:1221371974

15

Patchell RATibbs PARegine WFDempsey RJMohiuddin MKryscio RJ: Postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of single metastases to the brain: a randomized trial. JAMA 280:148514891998

16

Phillips PCThan TTCork LCHilton JCarson BSColvin OM: Intrathecal 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide: neurotoxicity, cerebrospinal fluid pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity in a rabbit model of VX2 leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Cancer Res 52:616861741992

17

Preston JKMasciopinto JSalamat MSBadie B: Tumour cell dispersion by the ultrasonic aspirator during brain tumour resection. Br J Neurosurg 13:4864891999

18

Rosen STAisner JMakuch RWMatthews MJIhde DCWhitacre M: Carcinomatous leptomeningitis in small cell lung cancer: a clinicopathologic review of the National Cancer Institute experience. Medicine (Baltimore) 61:45531982

19

Seute TLeffers Pten Velde GPTwijnstra A: Leptomeningeal metastases from small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer 104:170017052005

20

Siomin VEVogelbaum MAKanner AALee SYSuh JHBarnett GH: Posterior fossa metastases: risk of leptomeningeal disease when treated with stereotactic radiosurgery compared to surgery. J Neurooncol 67:1151212004

21

Suki DAbouassi HPatel AJSawaya RWeinberg JSGroves MD: Comparative risk of leptomeningeal disease after resection or stereotactic radiosurgery for solid tumor metastasis to the posterior fossa. J Neurosurg 108:2482572008

22

Suki DHatiboglu MAPatel AJWeinberg JSGroves MDMahajan A: Comparative risk of leptomeningeal dissemination of cancer after surgery or stereotactic radiosurgery for a single supratentorial solid tumor metastasis. Neurosurgery 64:6646762009

23

Taillibert SLaigle-Donadey FChodkiewicz CSanson MHoang-Xuan KDelattre JY: Leptomeningeal metastases from solid malignancy: a review. J Neurooncol 75:85992005

24

Umpleby HCWilliamson RC: Anastomotic recurrence in large bowel cancer. Br J Surg 74:8738781987

25

van der Ree TCDippel DWAvezaat CJSillevis Smitt PAVecht CJvan den Bent MJ: Leptomeningeal metastasis after surgical resection of brain metastases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 66:2252271999

TrendMD

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 56 56 23
Full Text Views 210 210 29
PDF Downloads 88 88 9
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar