Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2025
Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Gynecologic Cancer
Published on: April 17, 2012
Surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal leiomyosarcoma: a single-institution retrospective series and
Aroosa Zamarud1, Neelan J Marianayagam1, Vashisht Sekar1
11Departments of Neurosurgery.
Objective:
Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is a rare, aggressive soft-tissue sarcoma that seldom spreads to the bone. The spine can be either the site of LMS osseous metastases or the primary tumor site. The optimal treatment option for spinal LMS is still unclear. The authors present a cohort of patients with spinal LMS treated with either upfront surgery or upfront CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).
Methods:
The authors retrospectively studied the clinical and radiological outcomes of 17 patients with spinal LMS treated at their institution between 2004 and 2020. Either surgery or SRS was used as the upfront treatment. The clinical and radiological outcomes were assessed. A systematic review of the literature was also conducted.
Results:
Of the 17 patients (20 spinal lesions), 12 (70.6%) were female. The median patient age was 61 years (range 41-80 years). Ten patients had upfront surgery for their spinal lesions, and 7 had upfront CyberKnife radiosurgery. The median follow-up was 11 months (range 0.3-130 months). The median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 13 months (range 0.3-97 months). In subgroup analysis, the median OS was lower for the surgical group (13 months, range 0.3-50 months), while the median OS for the SRS group was 15 months (range 5-97 months) (p = 0.5). Forty percent (n = 4) of those treated with surgery presented with local recurrence at a median of 6.7 months (range 0.3-36 months), while only 14% (n = 1) of those treated with CyberKnife radiosurgery had local recurrence after 5 months. Local tumor control (LTC) rates at the 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups were 72%, 58%, and 43%, respectively, for the SRS group and 40%, 30%, and 20%, respectively, for the surgery group (p < 0.05). The literature review included 35 papers with 70 patients harboring spinal LMS; only 2 patients were treated with SRS. The literature review confirms the clinical and radiological outcomes of the surgical group, while data on SRS are anecdotal.
Conclusions:
The authors present the largest series in the literature of spinal LMS and the first on SRS for spinal LMS. This study shows that LTC is statistically significantly better in patients receiving upfront SRS instead of surgery. The OS does not appear different between the two groups.
