Automated volumetric assessment of pituitary adenoma

PURPOSE Assessment of pituitary adenoma (PA) volume and extent of resection (EOR) through manual segmentation is time-consuming and likely suffers from poor interrater agreement, especially postoperatively. Automated tumor segmentation and volumetry by use of deep learning techniques may provide more objective and quick volumetry. METHODS We developed an automated volumetry pipeline for pituitary adenoma. Preoperative and three-month postoperative T1-weighted, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with manual segmentations were used for model training. After adequate preprocessing, an ensemble of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) was trained and validated for preoperative and postoperative automated segmentation of tumor tissue. Generalization was evaluated on a separate holdout set. RESULTS In total, 193 image sets were used for training and 20 were held out for validation. At validation using the holdout set, our models (preoperative / postoperative) demonstrated a median Dice score of 0.71 (0.27) / 0 (0), a mean Jaccard score of 0.53 ± 0.21/0.030 ± 0.085 and a mean 95$^{th}$ percentile Hausdorff distance of 3.89 ± 1.96./12.199 ± 6.684. Pearson's correlation coefficient for volume correlation was 0.85 / 0.22 and -0.14 for extent of resection. Gross total resection was detected with a sensitivity of 66.67% and specificity of 36.36%. CONCLUSIONS Our volumetry pipeline demonstrated its ability to accurately segment pituitary adenomas. This is highly valuable for lesion detection and evaluation of progression of pituitary incidentalomas. Postoperatively, however, objective and precise detection of residual tumor remains less successful. Larger datasets, more diverse data, and more elaborate modeling could potentially improve performance

FUSE-ML: development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for mid-term outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease

Background: Indications and outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease are notoriously heterogenous. Selected subsets of patients show remarkable benefit. However, their objective identification is often difficult. Decision-making may be improved with reliable prediction of long-term outcomes for each individual patient, improving patient selection and avoiding ineffective procedures. Methods: Clinical prediction models for long-term functional impairment [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)], back pain, and leg pain after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease were developed. Achievement of the minimum clinically important difference at 12 months postoperatively was defined as a reduction from baseline of at least 15 points for ODI, 2.2 points for COMI, or 2 points for pain severity. Results: Models were developed and integrated into a web-app ( https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/fuseml/ ) based on a multinational cohort [N = 817; 42.7% male; mean (SD) age: 61.19 (12.36) years]. At external validation [N = 298; 35.6% male; mean (SD) age: 59.73 (12.64) years], areas under the curves for functional impairment [0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-0.74], back pain (0.72, 95%CI: 0.64-0.79), and leg pain (0.64, 95%CI: 0.54-0.73) demonstrated moderate ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from surgery. Models demonstrated fair calibration of the predicted probabilities. Conclusions: Outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease remain difficult to predict. Although assistive clinical prediction models can help in quantifying potential benefits of surgery and the externally validated FUSE-ML tool may aid in individualized risk-benefit estimation, truly impacting clinical practice in the era of "personalized medicine" necessitates more robust tools in this patient population. Keywords: Clinical prediction model; Machine learning; Neurosurgery; Outcome prediction; Predictive analytics; Spinal fusion

Optimal PHASES scoring for risk stratification of surgically treated unruptured aneurysms

OBJECTIVE: The PHASES (Population, Hypertension, Age, Size, Earlier subarachnoid hemorrhage, Site) score was developed to facilitate risk stratification for management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs). This study aimed to identify the optimal PHASES score cutoff for predicting neurological outcomes in patients with surgically treated aneurysms. METHODS: All patients who underwent microneurosurgical treatment for UIA at a large quaternary center from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria included a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of ≤2 at admission. The primary outcome was 1-year mRS score, with a poor neurological outcome defined as an mRS score \u3e2. RESULTS: In total, 375 patients were included in the analysis; The mean (SD) PHASES score for the entire study population was 4.47 (2.67). Of 375 patients, 116 (31%) had a PHASES score ≥6, which was found to maximize prediction of poor neurological outcome. Patients with PHASES scores ≥6 had significantly higher rates of poor neurological outcome than patients with PHASES scores \u3c6 at discharge (58 [50%] vs 90 [35%], p=0.005) and follow-up (20 [17%] vs 18 [6.9%], p=0.002). After adjusting for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, nonsaccular aneurysm, and aneurysm size, PHASES score ≥6 remained a significant predictor of poor neurological outcome at follow-up (odds ratio, 2.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-5.36, p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, a PHASES score ≥6 was associated with significantly greater proportions of poor outcome, suggesting that awareness of this threshold in PHASES scoring could be useful in risk stratification and UIA management

Mortality After Microsurgical Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms in the Modern Era

BACKGROUND: The incidence of mortality after treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) has been described historically. However, many advances in microsurgical treatment have since emerged, and most available data are outdated. We analyzed the incidence of mortality after microsurgical treatment of patients with UIAs treated in the past decade. METHODS: The medical records of all patients with UIAs who underwent elective treatment at our large quaternary center from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, were reviewed retrospectively. We analyzed mortality at discharge and 1-year follow-up as the primary outcome using univariate to multivariable progression with P \u3c 0.20 inclusion. RESULTS: During the 7-year study period, 488 patients (mean [SD] age = 58 [12] years) had UIAs treated microsurgically. Of these patients, 61 (12.5%) had a prior subarachnoid hemorrhage. One patient (0.2%) with a dolichoectatic vertebrobasilar aneurysm died while hospitalized, and 7 other patients (8 total; 1.6%) were determined to have died at 1-year follow-up (1 trauma, 2 myocardial infarction, 2 cerebrovascular accident, 1 pulmonary embolism, and 1 subdural hematoma complicated by abscess). On univariate analysis, significant risk factors for mortality at follow-up included diabetes mellitus, preoperative anticoagulant or antiplatelet use, aneurysm calcification, nonsaccular aneurysm, and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grades (all P \u3c 0.03). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, only nonsaccular aneurysms and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grades were predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A low mortality rate is associated with recent microsurgical treatment of UIAs. However, nonsaccular aneurysms and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grades appear to be predictors of mortality

FUSE-ML: development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for mid-term outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease

Background: Indications and outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease are notoriously heterogenous. Selected subsets of patients show remarkable benefit. However, their objective identification is often difficult. Decision-making may be improved with reliable prediction of long-term outcomes for each individual patient, improving patient selection and avoiding ineffective procedures. Methods: Clinical prediction models for long-term functional impairment [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)], back pain, and leg pain after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease were developed. Achievement of the minimum clinically important difference at 12 months postoperatively was defined as a reduction from baseline of at least 15 points for ODI, 2.2 points for COMI, or 2 points for pain severity. Results: Models were developed and integrated into a web-app (https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/fuseml/) based on a multinational cohort [N = 817; 42.7% male; mean (SD) age: 61.19 (12.36) years]. At external validation [N = 298; 35.6% male; mean (SD) age: 59.73 (12.64) years], areas under the curves for functional impairment [0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59–0.74], back pain (0.72, 95%CI: 0.64–0.79), and leg pain (0.64, 95%CI: 0.54–0.73) demonstrated moderate ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from surgery. Models demonstrated fair calibration of the predicted probabilities. Conclusions: Outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease remain difficult to predict. Although assistive clinical prediction models can help in quantifying potential benefits of surgery and the externally validated FUSE-ML tool may aid in individualized risk–benefit estimation, truly impacting clinical practice in the era of “personalized medicine” necessitates more robust tools in this patient population

FUSE-ML: development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for mid-term outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease

Background: Indications and outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease are notoriously heterogenous. Selected subsets of patients show remarkable benefit. However, their objective identification is often difficult. Decision-making may be improved with reliable prediction of long-term outcomes for each individual patient, improving patient selection and avoiding ineffective procedures. Methods: Clinical prediction models for long-term functional impairment [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)], back pain, and leg pain after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease were developed. Achievement of the minimum clinically important difference at 12 months postoperatively was defined as a reduction from baseline of at least 15 points for ODI, 2.2 points for COMI, or 2 points for pain severity. Results: Models were developed and integrated into a web-app (https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/fuseml/) based on a multinational cohort [N = 817; 42.7% male; mean (SD) age: 61.19 (12.36) years]. At external validation [N = 298; 35.6% male; mean (SD) age: 59.73 (12.64) years], areas under the curves for functional impairment [0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59–0.74], back pain (0.72, 95%CI: 0.64–0.79), and leg pain (0.64, 95%CI: 0.54–0.73) demonstrated moderate ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from surgery. Models demonstrated fair calibration of the predicted probabilities. Conclusions: Outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease remain difficult to predict. Although assistive clinical prediction models can help in quantifying potential benefits of surgery and the externally validated FUSE-ML tool may aid in individualized risk–benefit estimation, truly impacting clinical practice in the era of “personalized medicine” necessitates more robust tools in this patient population