Safety and efficacy of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of pituitary adenomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

14Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Accumulated studies have not provided conclusive evidence in regards to the comparative efficacy and safety of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of pituitary adenomas. To address this issue, we performed a meta-analysis with eight studies identified from Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and published up to September 17, 2015. Eligible studies reported the disease control rate, endocrine cure rate (for functional adenomas), the rate of occurrence of new-onset hypopituitarism, and visual disturbance rate in patients treated with either stereotactic radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. Eight studies enrolled a total of 634 patients with pituitary adenoma, 273 patients underwent a stereotactic radiosurgery and 361 patients underwent fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. No significant differences were found in efficacy measures, such as disease control rate and endocrine cure rate, between stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (OR = 1.156, p = 0.666; OR = 0.659, p = 0.153, respectively). Additionally, meta-analysis of safety measures, such as the rate of new-onset hypopituitarism and visual disturbance rate, did not show significant differences between different treatments (OR = 1.365, p = 0.469; OR = 0.872, p = 0.845 respectively). In conclusion, both stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy have comparable efficacy and safety in the management of pituitary adenoma patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, X., Li, Y., Cao, Y., Li, P., Liang, B., Sun, J., & Feng, E. (2017). Safety and efficacy of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of pituitary adenomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 372, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.11.024

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free