Gamma knife radiosurgery for renal cell carcinoma brain metastases across systemic therapy eras: survival, intracranial failure, and lesion-level predictors - Summary - MDSpire

Gamma knife radiosurgery for renal cell carcinoma brain metastases across systemic therapy eras: survival, intracranial failure, and lesion-level predictors

  • By

  • Neil D. Almeida

  • Sarthak Sinha

  • Mengyu Fang

  • Harshini Cheruvu

  • Roshan Tasgaonkar

  • Babar Gulzar

  • Venkatesh Madhugiri

  • Victor Goulenko

  • Dheerendra Prasad

  • July 3, 2026

  • 0 min

Share

Objective:

To evaluate patient-level overall survival and intracranial treatment failure, as well as lesion-level local failure in patients with intracranial RCC metastases treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS).

Approach:
  • Study Design: A retrospective cohort study of 34 patients with 87 intracranial lesions treated with GKRS from January 1, 2001, to February 28, 2025.
  • Radiosurgery Technique: GKRS was performed using various Leksell Gamma Knife models, with individualized prescription doses based on lesion characteristics.
  • Systemic Therapy Exposure: Systemic therapy was categorized as TKI only, IO only, TKI plus IO, or no systemic therapy, treated as a time-agnostic exposure.
  • Follow-up and Imaging Assessment: Patients underwent clinical and MRI follow-up at institutional intervals, with lesion volumes recorded on serial MRI.
Key Findings:
  • A total of 34 patients with 87 intracranial lesions were treated with GKRS.
  • Surgical resection was performed in 7 patients.
  • GKRS was delivered as upfront definitive therapy in 27 patients and as adjuvant therapy in 7 patients.
  • Systemic therapy exposure included TKI, IO, or both, with varying effects on outcomes related to survival and local failure rates.
Interpretation:

The study provides insights into the outcomes of GKRS for RCC brain metastases, focusing on the influence of systemic therapy and disease burden on survival and local failure rates.

Limitations:
  • The study is retrospective and may be subject to selection bias.
  • Timing of systemic therapy relative to GKRS was not reliably captured.
  • Follow-up intervals varied, potentially affecting volumetric assessment.
Conclusion:

The study highlights the need for further research to clarify the integration of systemic therapy with GKRS in real-world cohorts treated across different systemic therapy eras.

Original Source(s)

Related Content