Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

, Volume 196, Issue 1, pp 40–47 | Cite as

Twelve-year results of LINAC-based radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas

  • Paola Anselmo
  • Michelina Casale
  • Fabio Arcidiacono
  • Fabio Trippa
  • Rossella Rispoli
  • Lorena Draghini
  • Sara Terenzi
  • Alessandro Di Marzo
  • Ernesto MaranzanoEmail author
Original Article



To report long-term outcomes of 53 patients with vestibular schwannomas (VS) submitted to a single high-dose LINAC-based radiosurgery (SRS) in our institution.


48 (92%) patients were evaluable for clinical and MRI response as well as late toxicity. At a median follow-up of 12 years (range 2–16 years), local control (LC), hearing capacity, trigeminal and facial nerve function, and toxicity were assessed. Hearing capacity was classified according to the Gardner–Robertson scale, where class I–II patients had “serviceable hearing.”


Median dose of SRS was 16.5 Gy (range 13–20 Gy) and median tumor volume 1.7 cm3 (range 0.09–7.4 cm3). 35 (73%) patients were treated with SRS alone, in the remaining 13 (27%) patients, SRS was performed as salvage therapy for recurrent or progressive tumors after previous microsurgery. Before SRS, 44 patients (92%) had hearing loss and 25 (52%) had “non-serviceable” hearing. Tumor extension, classified with Koos categories, was grade I–II in 27 (56%) and grade III–IV in 21 (44%) cases. LC was 100% and hearing preservation in “serviceable hearing” patients was 91%. 4 (11%) patients developed incomplete and intermittent ipsilateral facial nerve palsy which regressed in a median time of 6 months. Trigeminal toxicity was registered in 11 (23%) patients, reversible in 6 (13%) and permanent in 5 (10%). Only Koos tumor grade III–IV significantly influenced late toxicity (p = 0.01).


LC and hearing preservation after SRS were excellent. Toxicity proved acceptable. Although the median administered dose (16.5 Gy) was rather high, the only factor which significantly influenced late toxicity was Koos tumor grade III–IV.


Vestibular schwannomas Koos tumor grade Radiosurgery Late toxicity Hearing preservation 

Zwölfjahresergebnisse der LINAC-basierten Radiochirurgie für Vestibularisschwannome



Bericht der Langzeitergebnisse von 53 Patienten mit Vestibularisschwannomen (VS), die sich in unserer Einrichtung einer einzigen hochdosierten LINAC-Radiochirurgie (SRS) unterzogen haben.


Insgesamt 48 (92%) Patienten waren für klinisches und Magnetresonanztomographie-(MRT-)Ansprechen sowie für spätere Toxizität auswertbar. Nach einem medianen Follow-up von 12 Jahren (Spanne 2–16 Jahre) wurden die lokale Kontrolle (LC), die Hörkapazität, die Trigeminus- und die Gesichtsnervenfunktion sowie die Toxizität bewertet. Die Hörkapazität wurde nach der Gardner-Robertson-Skala klassifiziert, in der die Patienten der Klasse I–II die Funktion „hörfähiges Hören“ hatten.


Die mittlere SRS-Dosis betrug 16,5 Gy (Spanne 13–20 Gy) und das mittlere Tumorvolumen 1,7 cm3 (Spanne 0,09–7,4 cm3). Es wurden 35 (73%) Patienten nur mit SRS behandelt, in den verbleibenden 13 (27%) wurde SRS als Salvage-Therapie für rezidivierende oder progressive Tumore durchgeführt. Vor der SRS hatte die Mehrheit der Patienten (92%) einen Hörverlust und 25 (52%) eine „unbrauchbare“ Hörfunktion. Die Tumorausbreitung, klassifiziert nach den Koos-Kategorien, war in 27 Fällen (56%) Grad I–II und in 21 (44%) Grad III–IV. Bei der MRT-Untersuchung lag die LC bei 100% und die Hörerhaltung bei Patienten mit „brauchbarer“ Hörfunktion bei 91%. Vier (11%) Patienten entwickelten eine unvollständige und intermittierende ipsilaterale Fazialisparese, die sich in einer mittleren Zeit von 6 Monaten zurückbildete. Die toxische Schädigung des N. trigeminus war reversibel bei 6 (13%) und dauerhaft bei 5 (10%) Patienten. Nur der Koos-Tumorgrad III–IV beeinflusste die spätere Toxizität signifikant (p = 0,01).


Die LC und Hörerhaltung nach SRS waren ausgezeichnet. Die Toxizität war akzeptabel. Obwohl die mittlere verabreichte Dosis (16,5 Gy) ziemlich hoch war, war der einzige Faktor, der die Spättoxizität signifikant beeinflusste, der Koos-Tumorgrad III–IV.


Vestibularisschwannome Koos-Tumorgrad Radiochirurgie Späte Toxizität 


Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

P. Anselmo, M. Casale, F. Arcidiacono, F. Trippa, R. Rispoli, L. Draghini, S. Terenzi, A. Di Marzo, and E. Maranzano declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Moffat DA, Kasbekar A, Axon PR, Lloyd SK (2012) Growth characteristics of vestibular schwannomas. Otol Neurotol 33:1053–1058PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stucken EZ, Brown K, Selesnick SH (2012) Clinical and diagnostic evaluation of acoustic neuromas. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 45:269–284CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mulder JJ, Kaanders JH, van Overbeeke JJ et al (2012) Radiationtherapy for vestibular schwannomas. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 20:367–371CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gait C, Frew EJ, Martin TPC et al (2014) Conservative management, surgery and radiosurgery for treatment of vestibular schwannomas: a model-based approach to cost-effectiveness. Clin Otolaryngol 39:22–23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maniakas A, Saliba I (2012) Conservative management versus stereotactic radiation for vestibular schwannomas: a meta-analysis of patients with more than 5 years’ follow-up. Otol Neurotol 33(2):230–238CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, McLaughlin MR et al (1998) Long term outcomes after radiosurgery for acoustic neuromas. N Engl J Med 339:1426–1433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flickinger JC (2002) What is the optimal dose and fractionation for stereotactic irradiation of acoustic neuromas? [Editorial]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:311–312CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koos WT, Spetzler RF, Lang J (1993) Color atlas of microsurgery. Thieme, New York, pp 530–532Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cox D (1972) Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 34:187–220Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Régis J, Carron R, Park MC et al (2010) Wait-and-see strategy compared with proactive Gamma Knife surgery in patients with intracanalicular vestibular schwannomas. J Neurosurg 113(Suppl):105–111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamakami I, Uchino Y, Kobayashi E et al (2003) Conservative management, gamma-knife radiosurgery, and microsurgery for acoustic neurinomas: a systematic review of outcome and risk of three therapeutic options. Neurol Res 25:682–690CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Di Maio S, Akagami R (2009) Prospective comparison of quality of life before and after observation, radiation, or surgery for vestibular schwannomas. J Neurosurg 111:855–862CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Combs SE, Engelhard C, Kopp C et al (2015) Long-term outcome after highly advanced single-dose or fractionated radiotherapy in patients with vestibular schwannomas—pooled results from 3 large German centers. Radiother Oncol 114:378–383CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaylie DM, Mc Menomey SO (2003) Microsurgery vs. gamma knife radiosurgery for the treatment of vestibular schwannomas. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129:903–906CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hasegawa T, Kida Y, Kato T et al (2013) Long-term safety and efficacy of stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas: evaluation of 440 patients more than 10 years after treatment with Gamma Knife surgery. J Neurosurg 118:557–565CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kopp C, Fauser C, Müller A et al (2011) Stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy and linac radiosurgery in the treatment of vestibular schwannoma—report about both stereotactic methods from a single institution. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80:1485–1491CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maniakas A, Saliba I (2012) Microsurgery versus stereotactic radiation for small vestibular schwannomas: a meta-analysis of patients with more than 5 years’ follow-up. Otol Neurotol 33:1611–1620CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boari N, Bailo M, Gagliardi F et al (2014) Gamma Knife radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma: clinical results at long-term follow-up in a series of 379 patients. J Neurosurg 121(Suppl):123–142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Combs SE, Thilmann C, Debus J, Schulz-Ertner D (2006) Long-term outcome of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in patients with acoustic neuromas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64(5):1341–1347CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lefranc M, Da Roz LM, Balossier A, Thomassin JM, Roche PH, Regis J (2018) Place of gamma knife Stereotactic Radiosurgery in grade 4 vestibular Schwannoma based on case series of 86 patients with long-term follow-up. World Neurosurg 114:e1192–e1198CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rueß D, Pöhlmann L, Hellerbach A, Hamisch C, Hoevels M, Treuer H, Grau S, Jablonska K, Kocher M, Ruge MI (2018) Acoustic Neuroma treated with Stereotactic Radiosurgery: follow-up of 335 patients. World Neurosurg 30:e1–e9Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frischer JM, Gruber E, Schöffmann V, Ertl A, Höftberger R, Mallouhi A, Wolfsberger S, Arnoldner C, Eisner W, Knosp E, Kitz K, Gatterbauer B (2018) Long-term outcome after Gamma Knife radiosurgery for acoustic neuroma of all Koos grades: a single-center study. J Neurosurg 2:1–10Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meijer OW, Vandertop WP, Baayen JC, Slotman BJ (2003) Single-fraction vs. fractionated linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma: a single-institution study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:1390–1396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andrews DW, Suarez O, Goldman HW et al (2001) Stereotactic radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for the treatment of acoustic schwannomas: Comparative observations of 125 patients treated at one institution. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:1265–1278CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fuss M, Debus J, Lohr F et al (2000) Conventionally fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) for acoustic neuromas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:1381–1387CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Collen C, Ampe B, Gevaert T, Moens M, Linthout N, De Ridder M, Verellen D, D’Haens J, Storme G (2011) Single fraction versus fractionated linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy for vestibular schwannoma: a single-institution experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:e503–e509CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Apicella G, Paolini M, Deantonio L, Masini L, Krengli M (2016) Radiotherapy for vestibular schwannoma: review of recent literature results. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 21:399–406CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kapoor S, Batra S, Carson K, Shuck J, Kharkar S, Gandhi R et al (2011) Long-term outcomes of vestibular schwannomas treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy: an institutional experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:647–653CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Powell C, Micallef C, Gonsalves A, Wharram B, Ashley S, Brada M (2011) Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in the treatment of vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma): predicting the risk of hydrocephalus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 80:1143–1150CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smouha EE, Yoo M, Mohr K, Davis RP (2005) Conservative management of acoustic neuroma: a meta-analysis and proposed treatment algorithm. Laryngoscope 115:450–454CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yamakami I, Uchino Y, Kobayashi E, Yamaura A (2003) Conservative management, gamma-knife radiosurgery, and microsurgery for acoustic neurinomas: a systematic review of outcome and risk of three therapeutic options. Neurol Res 25:682–690CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Battaglia A, Mastrodimos B, Cueva R (2006) Comparison of growth patterns of acoustic neuromas with and without radiosurgery. Otol Neurotol 27:705–712CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cacciatore F, Napoli C, Abete P, Marciano E, Triassi M, Rengo F (1999) Quality of life determinants and hearing function in an elderly population: Osservatorio Geriatrico Campano Study Group. Gerontology 45:323–328CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maggi S, Minicuci N, Martini A, Langlois J, Siviero P, Pavan M et al (1998) Prevalence rates of hearing impairment and comorbid conditions in older people: the Veneto Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 46:1069–1074CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Arthurs BJ, Fairbanks RK, Demakas JJ, Lamoreaux WT, Giddings NA, Mackay AR et al (2011) A review of treatment modalities for vestibular schwannoma. Neurosurg Rev 34:265–277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Combs SE, Welzel T, Kessel K, Habermehl D, Rieken S, Schramm O (2013) Hearing preservation after radiotherapy for vestibular schwannomas is comparable to hearing deterioration in healthy adults and is accompanied by local tumor control and a highly preserved quality of life (QOL) as patients’ self-reported outcome. Radiother Oncol 106(2):175–180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Park SS, Grills IS, Bojrab D, Pieper D, Kartush J, Maitz A et al (2011) Longitudinal assessment of quality of life and audiometric test outcomes in vestibular schwannoma patients treated with gamma knife surgery. Otol Neurotol 32:676–679CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roos DE, Potter AE, Zacest AC (2011) Hearing preservation after low dose linac radiosurgery for acoustic neuroma depends on initial hearing and time. Radiother Oncol 101:420–424CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mazzoni A, Biroli F, Foresti C, Signorelli A, Sortino C, Zanoletti E (2011) Hearing preservation surgery in acoustic neuroma. Slow progress and new strategies. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 31:76–84PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Litre F, Rousseaux P, Jovenin N, Bazin A, Peruzzi P, Wdowczyk D et al (2013) Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for acoustic neuromas: a prospective monocenter study of about 158 cases. Radiother Oncol 106:169–174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rueß D, Pöhlmann L, Grau S, Hamisch C, Hellerbach A, Treuer H, Kocher M, Ruge MI (2017) Long-term follow-up after stereotactic radiosurgery of intracanalicular acoustic neurinoma. Radiat Oncol 12(1):68CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Watanabe S, Yamamoto M, Kawabe T, Koiso T, Yamamoto T, Matsumura A, Kasuya H (2016) Stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas: average 10-year follow-up results focusing on long-term hearing preservation. J Neurosurg 125:64–72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paola Anselmo
    • 1
  • Michelina Casale
    • 1
  • Fabio Arcidiacono
    • 1
  • Fabio Trippa
    • 1
  • Rossella Rispoli
    • 2
  • Lorena Draghini
    • 1
  • Sara Terenzi
    • 1
  • Alessandro Di Marzo
    • 1
  • Ernesto Maranzano
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Radiotherapy Oncology Centre“S. Maria” HospitalTerniItaly
  2. 2.Neurosurgery Division“S. Maria” HospitalTerniItaly

Personalised recommendations