Chemotherapy and diffuse low-grade gliomas: a survey within the European Low-Grade Glioma Network.

Diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGGs) are rare and incurable tumors. Whereas maximal safe, functional-based surgical resection is the first-line treatment, the timing and choice of further treatments (chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or combined treatments) remain controversial. An online survey on the management of DLGG patients was sent to 28 expert centers from the European Low-Grade Glioma Network (ELGGN) in May 2015. It contained 40 specific questions addressing the modalities of use of chemotherapy in these patients. The survey demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in practice regarding the initial management of DLGG patients and the use of chemotherapy. Interestingly, radiation therapy combined with the procarbazine, CCNU (lomustine), and vincristine regimen has not imposed itself as the gold-standard treatment after surgery, despite the results of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9802 study. Temozolomide is largely used as first-line treatment after surgical resection for high-risk DLGG patients, or at progression. The heterogeneity in the management of patients with DLGG demonstrates that many questions regarding the postoperative strategy and the use of chemotherapy remain unanswered. Our survey reveals a high recruitment potential within the ELGGN for retrospective or prospective studies to generate new data regarding these issues

THE AFTERCARE SURVEY:Assessment and intervention practices after brain tumour surgery in Europe

Introduction People with gliomas need specialized neurosurgical, neuro-oncological, psycho-oncological, and neuropsychological care. The role of language and cognitive recovery and rehabilitation in patients’ well-being and resumption of work is crucial, but there are no clear guidelines for the ideal timing and character of assessments and interventions. The goal of the present work was to describe representative (neuro)psychological practices implemented after brain surgery in Europe. Methods An online survey was addressed to professionals working with individuals after brain surgery. We inquired about the assessments and interventions and the involvement of caregivers. Additionally, we asked about recommendations for an ideal assessment and intervention plan. Results Thirty-eight European centres completed the survey. Thirty of them offered at least one post-surgical (neuro)psychological assessment, mainly for language and cognition, especially during the early recovery stage and at long-term. Twenty-eight of the participating centres offered post-surgical therapies. Patients who stand the highest chances of being included in evaluation and therapy post-surgically are those who underwent awake brain surgery, harboured a low-grade glioma, or showed poor recovery. Nearly half of the respondents offer support programs to caregivers, and all teams recommend them. Treatments differed between these offered to individuals with low-grade glioma versus those with high-grade glioma. The figure of caregiver is not yet fully recognized in the recovery phase. Conclusion We stress the need for more complete rehabilitation plans, including the emotional and health-related aspects of recovery. In respondents´ opinions, assessment and rehabilitation plans should also be individually tailored and goal-directed (e.g., professional reinsertion)

Variation in postoperative outcomes of patients with intracranial tumors: insights from a prospective international cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the international variation in surgical neuro-oncology practice and 30-day outcomes of patients who had surgery for an intracranial tumor during the COVID-19 pandemic./ METHODS: We prospectively included adults aged ≥18 years who underwent surgery for a malignant or benign intracranial tumor across 55 international hospitals from 26 countries. Each participating hospital recorded cases for 3 consecutive months from the start of the pandemic. We categorized patients’ location by World Bank income groups (high [HIC], upper-middle [UMIC], and low- and lower-middle [LLMIC]). Main outcomes were a change from routine management, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 30-day mortality. We used a Bayesian multilevel logistic regression stratified by hospitals and adjusted for key confounders to estimate the association between income groups and mortality./ RESULTS: Among 1016 patients, the number of patients in each income group was 765 (75.3%) in HIC, 142 (14.0%) in UMIC, and 109 (10.7%) in LLMIC. The management of 200 (19.8%) patients changed from usual care, most commonly delayed surgery. Within 30 days after surgery, 14 (1.4%) patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis and 39 (3.8%) patients died. In the multivariable model, LLMIC was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 2.83, 95% credible interval 1.37–5.74) compared to HIC./ CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the pandemic had a significant impact on surgical decision-making. While the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 30 days after surgery was low, there was a disparity in mortality between countries and this warrants further examination to identify any modifiable factors

Imaging practice in low-grade gliomas among European specialized centers and proposal for a minimum core of imaging

Objective: Imaging studies in diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGG) vary across centers. In order to establish a minimal core of imaging necessary for further investigations and clinical trials in the field of DLGG, we aimed to establish the status quo within specialized European centers. Methods: An online survey composed of 46 items was sent out to members of the European Low-Grade Glioma Network, the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, the German Society of Neurosurgery and the Austrian Society of Neurosurgery. Results: A total of 128 fully completed surveys were received and analyzed. Most centers (n=96, 75%) were academic and half of the centers (n=64, 50%) adhered to a dedicated treatment program for DLGG. There were national differences regarding the sequences enclosed in MRI imaging and use of PET, however most included T1 (without and with contrast, 100%), T2 (100%) and TIRM or FLAIR (20, 98%). DWI is performed by 80% of centers and 61% of centers regularly performed PWI.ConclusionA minimal core of imaging composed of T1 (w/wo contrast), T2, TIRM/FLAIR, PWI and DWI could be identified. All morphologic images should be obtained in a slice thickness of 3mm. No common standard could be obtained regarding advanced MRI protocols and PET. Importance of the study: We believe that our study makes a significant contribution to the literature because we were able to determine similarities in numerous aspects of LGG imaging. Using the proposed minimal core of imaging in clinical routine will facilitate future cooperative studies

Expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Results of a survey by the EANS neuro-oncology section

Introduction: Technical advances and the increasing role of interdisciplinary decision-making may warrant formal definitions of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Research question: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section felt that a survey detailing the European neurosurgical perspective on the concept of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology might be helpful. Material and methods: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section panel developed an online survey asking questions regarding criteria for expertise in neuro-oncological surgery and sent it to all individual EANS members. Results: Our questionnaire was completed by 251 respondents (consultants: 80.1%) from 42 countries. 67.7% would accept a lifetime caseload of >200 cases and 86.7% an annual caseload of >50 as evidence of neuro-oncological surgical expertise. A majority felt that surgeons who do not treat children (56.2%), do not have experience with spinal fusion (78.1%) or peripheral nerve tumors (71.7%) may still be considered experts. Majorities believed that expertise requires the use of skull-base approaches (85.8%), intraoperative monitoring (83.4%), awake craniotomies (77.3%), and neuro-endoscopy (75.5%) as well as continuing education of at least 1/year (100.0%), a research background (80.0%) and teaching activities (78.7%), and formal interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., tumor board: 93.0%). Academic vs. non-academic affiliation, career position, years of neurosurgical experience, country of practice, and primary clinical interest had a minor influence on the respondents’ opinions. Discussion and conclusion: Opinions among neurosurgeons regarding the characteristics and features of expertise in neuro-oncology vary surprisingly little. Large majorities favoring certain thresholds and qualitative criteria suggest a consensus definition might be possible

Expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Results of a survey by the EANS neuro-oncology section

Introduction: Technical advances and the increasing role of interdisciplinary decision-making may warrant formal definitions of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Research question: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section felt that a survey detailing the European neurosurgical perspective on the concept of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology might be helpful. Material and methods: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section panel developed an online survey asking questions regarding criteria for expertise in neuro-oncological surgery and sent it to all individual EANS members. Results: Our questionnaire was completed by 251 respondents (consultants: 80.1%) from 42 countries. 67.7% would accept a lifetime caseload of >200 cases and 86.7% an annual caseload of >50 as evidence of neuro-oncological surgical expertise. A majority felt that surgeons who do not treat children (56.2%), do not have experience with spinal fusion (78.1%) or peripheral nerve tumors (71.7%) may still be considered experts. Majorities believed that expertise requires the use of skull-base approaches (85.8%), intraoperative monitoring (83.4%), awake craniotomies (77.3%), and neuro-endoscopy (75.5%) as well as continuing education of at least 1/year (100.0%), a research background (80.0%) and teaching activities (78.7%), and formal interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., tumor board: 93.0%). Academic vs. non-academic affiliation, career position, years of neurosurgical experience, country of practice, and primary clinical interest had a minor influence on the respondents’ opinions. Discussion and conclusion: Opinions among neurosurgeons regarding the characteristics and features of expertise in neuro-oncology vary surprisingly little. Large majorities favoring certain thresholds and qualitative criteria suggest a consensus definition might be possible

Development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for functional impairment after intracranial tumor surgery

OBJECTIVE Decision-making for intracranial tumor surgery requires balancing the oncological benefit against the risk for resection-related impairment. Risk estimates are commonly based on subjective experience and generalized num-bers from the literature, but even experienced surgeons overestimate functional outcome after surgery. Today, there is no reliable and objective way to preoperatively predict an individual patient's risk of experiencing any functional impair-ment. METHODS The authors developed a prediction model for functional impairment at 3 to 6 months after microsurgical resection, defined as a decrease in Karnofsky Performance Status of >= 10 points. Two prospective registries in Swit- zerland and Italy were used for development. External validation was performed in 7 cohorts from Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands. Age, sex, prior surgery, tumor histology and maximum diameter, expected major brain vessel or cranial nerve manipulation, resection in eloquent areas and the posterior fossa, and surgical approach were recorded. Discrimination and calibration metrics were evaluated. RESULTS In the development (2437 patients, 48.2% male; mean age +/- SD: 55 +/- 15 years) and external validation (2427 patients, 42.4% male; mean age +/- SD: 58 +/- 13 years) cohorts, functional impairment rates were 21.5% and 28.5%, respectively. In the development cohort, area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) were observed. In the pooled external validation cohort, the AUC was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74), confirming generalizability. Calibration plots indicated fair calibration in both cohorts. The tool has been incorporated into a web-based application available at https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/impairment/. CONCLUSIONS Functional impairment after intracranial tumor surgery remains extraordinarily difficult to predict, al- though machine learning can help quantify risk. This externally validated prediction tool can serve as the basis for case by-case discussions and risk-to-benefit estimation of surgical treatment in the individual patient.Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks