Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026
Comprehensive Endovascular and Open Surgical Management of Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations
Published on: October 20, 2017
Patterns of Failure After Linear Accelerator Radiosurgery for Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations
Youssef El Ouadih1, Jean Jacques Lemaire1, Bénédicte Vigier2
1Service de Neurochirurgie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Centre national de la recherche scientifique, SIGMA Clermont, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Background:
Numerous studies have assessed the predictive factors for the arteriovenous malformation (AVM) response to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). However, only a few have discussed the causes of failure. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the patterns of failure in patients with AVM who had undergone linear accelerator SRS.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective analysis of 288 patients who had undergone linear accelerator SRS in our institution from 1995 to 2011. Failure was defined from the findings of the follow-up angiogram at 5 years, with failure identified in 44 patients. The distribution of causes was estimated using a descriptive analysis of literature-based causes, including a minimal margin dose of <18 Gy, a residual nidus outside the initial targeted volume, previous embolization, recanalization, and the size of the target volume. We also analyzed the associations among the causes.
Results:
Incomplete nidus identification (41%) and previous embolization (77%) were the most frequently observed conditions in patients with failure. Patients who had undergone previous embolization, for whom the cause of failure had always been identified (P = 0.001), were younger (P = 0.004) and had had a larger nidus volume (P = 0.025). Recanalization was rare (5 of 34 patients) and had occurred exclusively in women (P = 0.048). Larger nidus volumes were less frequent (mean, 2.18 ± 2.2 cm3; range, 0.13-10.8 cm3) and had been observed mainly in women when >2 cm3 (P = 0.012). An insufficient dose was observed in 9 patients and had occurred in the case of a larger volume (P = 0.031), which had resulted in dosimetry constraints in 3 patients and treatment in the vicinity of eloquent zones in 6 patients. No known cause was found in 5 patients, 4 of whom had had a low Spetzler-Martin grade (I and II; P = 0.003), suggestive of radioresistance.
Conclusion:
The results of our detailed analysis have highlighted the distribution of the causes of failure and the potential role of radioresistance in treatment failure.
