Specialist healthcare services for concussion/mild traumatic brain injury in England: a consensus statement using modified Delphi methodology.

Peer reviewed: TrueAcknowledgements: We would like to thank Love of the Game for their support with this work. Peter Hutchinson would also like to thank the NIHR Senior Investigator Award, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Medtech Brain Injury Co-operative, Global Health Research Group on Acquired Brain and Spine Injury and Royal College of Surgeons of England. AH is supported by the Cambridge Biomedical Research Campus, the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and is a Theme Lead in the NIHR Brain Injury MedTech Collaborative.OBJECTIVE: To establish a consensus on the structure and process of healthcare services for patients with concussion in England to facilitate better healthcare quality and patient outcome. DESIGN: This consensus study followed the modified Delphi methodology with five phases: participant identification, item development, two rounds of voting and a meeting to finalise the consensus statements. The predefined threshold for agreement was set at ≥70%. SETTING: Specialist outpatient services. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the UK Head Injury Network were invited to participate. The network consists of clinical specialists in head injury practising in emergency medicine, neurology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, paediatric medicine, rehabilitation medicine and sports and exercise medicine in England. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: A consensus statement on the structure and process of specialist outpatient care for patients with concussion in England. RESULTS: 55 items were voted on in the first round. 29 items were removed following the first voting round and 3 items were removed following the second voting round. Items were modified where appropriate. A final 18 statements reached consensus covering 3 main topics in specialist healthcare services for concussion; care pathway to structured follow-up, prognosis and measures of recovery, and provision of outpatient clinics. CONCLUSIONS: This work presents statements on how the healthcare services for patients with concussion in England could be redesigned to meet their health needs. Future work will seek to implement these into the clinical pathway

Management evaluation of metastasis in the brain (MEMBRAIN)—a United Kingdom and Ireland prospective, multicenter observational study

Background: In recent years an increasing number of patients with cerebral metastasis (CM) have been referred to the neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team (NMDT). Our aim was to obtain a national picture of CM referrals to assess referral volume and quality and factors affecting NMDT decision making. Methods: A prospective multicenter cohort study including all adult patients referred to NMDT with 1 or more CM was conducted. Data were collected in neurosurgical units from November 2017 to February 2018. Demographics, primary disease, KPS, imaging, and treatment recommendation were entered into an online database. Results: A total of 1048 patients were analyzed from 24 neurosurgical units. Median age was 65 years (range, 21-93 years) with a median number of 3 referrals (range, 1-17 referrals) per NMDT. The most common primary malignancies were lung (36.5%, n = 383), breast (18.4%, n = 193), and melanoma (12.0%, n = 126). A total of 51.6% (n = 541) of the referrals were for a solitary metastasis and resulted in specialist intervention being offered in 67.5% (n = 365) of cases. A total of 38.2% (n = 186) of patients being referred with multiple CMs were offered specialist treatment. NMDT decision making was associated with number of CMs, age, KPS, primary disease status, and extent of extracranial disease (univariate logistic regression, P < .001) as well as sentinel location and tumor histology (P < .05). A delay in reaching an NMDT decision was identified in 18.6% (n = 195) of cases. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a changing landscape of metastasis management in the United Kingdom and Ireland, including a trend away from adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy and specialist intervention being offered to a significant proportion of patients with multiple CMs. Poor quality or incomplete referrals cause delay in NMDT decision making

External validation and recalibration of an incidental meningioma prognostic model - IMPACT: protocol for an international multicentre retrospective cohort study

Introduction: Due to the increased use of CT and MRI, the prevalence of incidental findings on brain scans is increasing. Meningioma, the most common primary brain tumour, is a frequently encountered incidental finding, with an estimated prevalence of 3/1000. The management of incidental meningioma varies widely with active clinical-radiological monitoring being the most accepted method by clinicians. Duration of monitoring and time intervals for assessment, however, are not well defined. To this end, we have recently developed a statistical model of progression risk based on single-centre retrospective data. The model Incidental Meningioma: Prognostic Analysis Using Patient Comorbidity and MRI Tests (IMPACT) employs baseline clinical and imaging features to categorise the patient with an incidental meningioma into one of three risk groups: low, medium and high risk with a proposed active monitoring strategy based on the risk and temporal trajectory of progression, accounting for actuarial life expectancy. The primary aim of this study is to assess the external validity of this model. Methods and analysis: IMPACT is a retrospective multicentre study which will aim to include 1500 patients with an incidental intracranial meningioma, powered to detect a 10% progression risk. Adult patients ≥16 years diagnosed with an incidental meningioma between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 will be included. Clinical and radiological data will be collected longitudinally until the patient reaches one of the study endpoints: intervention (surgery, stereotactic radiosurgery or fractionated radiotherapy), mortality or last date of follow-up. Data will be uploaded to an online Research Electronic Data Capture database with no unique identifiers. External validity of IMPACT will be tested using established statistical methods. Ethics and dissemination: Local institutional approval at each participating centre will be required. Results of the study will be reported through peer-reviewed articles and conferences and disseminated to participating centres, patients and the public using social media