Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) for brain metastases: a systematic review and pooled analysis of Efficacy/Safety and the role of combination treatments
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Patients with brain metastases or radiation necrosis secondary to previously treated brain metastases |
| I — Intervention | Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments (SRT, ICB, cSRS) |
| C — Comparator | No specific comparator (single-arm studies) |
| O — Outcomes | Local tumor control (LTC) rates at 6 and 12 months, safety profile, neurological deficits, procedure-related complications |
Bottom Line
This systematic review of 30 studies (972 patients) suggests LITT provides reasonable local control for brain metastases and radiation necrosis, with 6-month control rates of 74.4% and acceptable safety profiles. Combination approaches, particularly LITT with consolidation SRS or immune checkpoint blockade, show promising results with higher control rates. However, the evidence base remains predominantly retrospective and heterogeneous. Key predictive factors for success include smaller tumor volume, greater extent of ablation, and radiation necrosis pathology. While LITT appears to be a viable salvage option for selected patients with recurrent brain metastases, particularly when repeat SRS is not feasible, the current evidence is insufficient to establish definitive treatment algorithms. Prospective comparative studies are needed to better define patient selection criteria and optimal combination strategies before widespread adoption.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported
Effect Size: Pooled 6-month LTC: 74.4%, 12-month LTC: 67.9% for LITT monotherapy
Primary Outcome: Local tumor control rates at 6 and 12 months
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Combination therapies showed higher control rates: LITT+cSRS 100%, LITT+ICB 94.7%, LITT+SRT 76%
Confidence Interval: Not reported in abstract
Clinical Application
Requires specialised neurosurgical centres with LITT capability and appropriate patient selection based on tumor volume and location Limited availability in Australian centres; would require PBS consideration for combination therapies; aligns with NCCN guidelines for brain metastases management Patients with recurrent brain metastases or radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery, particularly those unsuitable for repeat SRS
Abstract
PURPOSE: Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has been used for brain metastases (BM), particularly for recurrent lesions and radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). As SRS is increasingly used, differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis has become a frequent clinical problem. Recently, LITT has also been combined with other treatments to improve outcomes. However, prior reviews have primarily focused on LITT monotherapy and have provided limited evaluation of emerging multimodal strategies. We aim to summarize the current literature on LITT for BM, with particular attention to local control, safety, factors associated with outcomes, and the potential role of combination treatment strategies. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched following PRISMA guidelines. We included studies reporting local control outcomes following LITT for BM or radiation necrosis secondary to previously treated BM. We used a combination of the following terms: ("laser interstitial thermal therapy" OR "LITT" OR "laser ablation") AND ("brain" OR "cerebral" OR "intracranial") AND ("metastases" OR "metastasis"). Graphical data were extracted using WebPlotDigitizer. A proportional meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled LTC rates at 6 and 12 months following treatment. RESULTS: A total of 254 studies were identified after duplicate removal, of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. These included 26 studies on LITT monotherapy and 4 on combination therapies, comprising 972 patients. Median age ranged from 51 to 69 years and median tumor volume from 2.2 to 8.5 cm. SRS was the most common prior treatment. Among patients treated with LITT monotherapy, pooled 6- and 12-month LTC rates were 74.4% and 67.9%, respectively. In subgroup analyses, corresponding rates were 74.0% and 67.9% for brain tumor metastases, and 76.6% and 65.7% for radiation necrosis. Studies of combination therapy reported local control rates of 76% for LITT+SRT (stereotactic radiotherapy), 94.7% for LITT+ICB (immune checkpoint blockade), and 100% at 12 months in both studies for LITT+cSRS (consolidation SRS). Transient neurological deficits were the most common adverse events, whereas permanent deficits were less frequent and procedure-related complications were reported in 20 patients. Significant predictive factors for better local control included greater extent of ablation, smaller pre-treatment tumor volume, pathology consistent with radiation necrosis and post-LITT chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that LITT may provide favorable local control with an acceptable safety profile in selected patients, and combination approaches may further improve outcomes. However, the available evidence remains largely retrospective and heterogeneous, and further prospective studies are needed to better define the role of LITT and combination treatment strategies.
References
- 1.Mizutani, Y., Hori, Y. S., Kattaa, A. H., Harary, P. M., Lam, F. C., Kalra, N., Zagzoog, N., Tayag, A., Ustrzynski, L., Emrich, S. C., Park, D. J., & Chang, S. D. (2026). Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) for brain metastases: a systematic review and pooled analysis of Efficacy/Safety and the role of combination treatments. Journal of Neuro-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npaf125
Related Research
Clinical spine surgery
An Introduction to Machine Learning for the Practicing Spine Surgeon
2 Aug 2026
Brain and behavior
Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Poor Outcomes in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
1 Aug 2026
Neurosurgical review
Development and external validation of a machine learning model for predicting postoperative hydrocephalus in 1,073 posterior fossa tumor patients
31 July 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service