The use of laser interstitial thermal therapy in the treatment of brain metastases: a literature review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to discuss the current evidence for Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy (LITT) in the treatment of brain metastases, our current recommendations for patient selection and the future perspectives for this therapy. We have also touched upon the possible complications and role of systemic therapy coupled with LITT for the treatment of brain metastases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two authors carried out the literature search using two databases independently, including PubMed, and Web of Science. The review included prospective and retrospective studies using LITT to treat brain metastases. RESULTS: Twenty-two original articles were analyzed in this review, particularly clinical outcomes and complications. We have also provided our institutional experience in the use of LITT to treat brain metastases and addressed future perspectives for the use of this technology. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature supports LITT as a safe and effective therapy for patients with brain metastases that have failed SRS. Larger studies are still required to better evaluate the use of systemic therapy in concomitance with LITT. New images modalities may enable optimized treatment and outcomes.

Predictors of Local Control of Brain Metastasis Treated With Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy (LITT) has been used to treat recurrent brain metastasis after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Little is known about how best to assess the efficacy of treatment, specifically the ability of LITT to control local tumor progression post-SRS. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive factors associated with local recurrence after LITT. METHODS: Retrospective study with consecutive patients with brain metastases treated with LITT. Based on radiological aspects, lesions were divided into progressive disease after SRS (recurrence or radiation necrosis) and new lesions. Primary endpoint was time to local recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 61 consecutive patients with 82 lesions (5 newly diagnosed, 46 recurrence, and 31 radiation necrosis). Freedom from local recurrence at 6 mo was 69.6%, 59.4% at 12, and 54.7% at 18 and 24 mo. Incompletely ablated lesions had a shorter median time for local recurrence (P < .001). Larger lesions (>6 cc) had shorter time for local recurrence (P = .03). Dural-based lesions showed a shorter time to local recurrence (P = .01). Tumor recurrence/newly diagnosed had shorter time to local recurrence when compared to RN lesions (P = .01). Patients receiving systemic therapy after LITT had longer time to local recurrence (P = .01). In multivariate Cox-regression model, the HR for incomplete ablated lesions was 4.88 (P < .001), 3.12 (P = .03) for recurrent tumors, and 2.56 (P = .02) for patients not receiving systemic therapy after LITT. Complication rate was 26.2%. CONCLUSION: Incompletely ablated and recurrent tumoral lesions were associated with higher risk of treatment failure and were the major predicting factors for local recurrence. Systemic therapy after LITT was a protective factor regarding local recurrence.