82 research outputs found
Surgical Techniques in Benign Extra-Axial Tumors
Extra-axial tumors are lesions, neoplastic and not, which are external to the brain parenchyma and can originate in the skull, meninges, cranial nerves, and brain appendages such as the pituitary gland. Surgery provides a diagnosis and can be the first step in the treatment. When chosen as a treatment, we should consider the access and the approach to the lesion, the adequate operative technique, and related skills, minor or major complications. Because of the benign nature of these tumors, the evaluation of the risk/benefit in submitting a patient to a surgical treatment has to be considered. We would like to give an overview about benign extra-axial tumors and surgical operative techniques and tools that can be applied to improve patient’s outcome
The role of decompressive craniectomy in the context of severe traumatic brain injury: summary of results and analysis of the confidence level of conclusions from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global epidemic. The incidence of TBI in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is three times greater than in high-income countries (HICs). Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a surgical procedure to reduce intracranial pressure (ICP) and prevent secondary injury. Multiple comparative studies, and several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to investigate the influence of DC for patients with severe TBI on outcomes such as mortality, ICP, neurological outcomes, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay. The results of these studies are inconsistent. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted in an effort to aggregate the data from the individual studies, and perhaps derive reliable conclusions. The purpose of this project was to conduct a review of the reviews about the effectiveness of DC to improve outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify reviews and meta-analyses that met our pre-determined criteria. We used the AMSTAR 2 instrument to assess the quality of each of the included reviews, and determine the level of confidence. Results: Of 973 citations from the original search, five publications were included in our review. Four of them included meta-analyses. For mortality, three reviews found a positive effect of DC compared to medical management and two found no significant difference between groups. The four reviews that measured neurological outcome found no benefit of DC. The two reviews that assessed ICP both found DC to be beneficial in reducing ICP. DC demonstrated a significant reduction in ICU length of stay in the one study that measured it, and a significant reduction in hospital length of stay in the two studies that measured it. According to the AMSTAR 2 criteria, the five reviews ranged in levels of confidence from low to critically low. Conclusion: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important approaches for aggregating information from multiple studies. Clinicians rely of these methods for concise interpretation of scientific literature. Standards for quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been established to support the quality of the reviews being produced. In the case of DC, more attention must be paid to quality standards, in the generation of both individual studies and reviews
A retrospective case series on the usefulness of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for benign intracranial tumors
Introduction: Conventional radiation therapy has been progressively replaced by fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) and single fraction radiosurgery for dealing with benign intracranial lesions. Purpose of our study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of FSRT in a series of patients with benign intracranial tumors. Methods: 31 patients with benign intracranial lesions treated with FSRT between 2006 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Indications for treatment included post-operative residual tumor growth or symptomatic exacerbation in patients in whom surgery was not indicated. A clinical and radiological outcome evaluation was performed. Univariate analysis was executed to identify predictors for post-treatment neurological function and radiological tumor control. Results: Median age was 62 years (range 22–82). The lesions treated included 20 meningiomas, 2 vestibular schwannomas, 7 pituitary adenomas, 1 craniopharyngioma, 1 jugular-tympanic paraganglioma. Median clinical target volume was 14.59 cm3 (range 0.43–159.06) and median planning treatment volume was 18.16 cm3 (range 0.81–217.24). Median total dose was 45 Gy (range 25–54), and median daily fraction 4 Gy (range 1.8–9). At a median follow-up of 78 and 50 months, respectively clinical and neuroradiological, no tumor had larger dimensions, and only one lesion changed in a way other than size determining a concomitant clinical worsening. Other three patients deteriorated without evidence of radiological progression. Conversely, 12 patients improved clinically. No significant predictor for post-treatment neurological function or radiological tumor control was found. Conclusion: FSRT may represent, when indicated, a safe and effective treatment modality for benign intracranial tumors, especially for large/irregular lesions. Keywords: Clinical outcome, Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, Intensity-modulated radiotherapy, Intracranial benign lesions, Tumor progression, Radiotherap
Effects of crystal morphology on the hot-carrier dynamics in mixed-cation hybrid lead halide perovskites
Ultrafast pump-probe spectroscopies have proved to be an important tool for the investigation of charge carriers dynamics in perovskite materials providing crucial information on the dynamics of the excited carriers, and fundamental in the development of new devices with tailored photovoltaic properties. Fast transient absorbance spectroscopy on mixed-cation hybrid lead halide perovskite samples was used to investigate how the dimensions and the morphology of the per-ovskite crystals embedded in the capping (large crystals) and mesoporous (small crystals) layers affect the hot-carrier dynamics in the first hundreds of femtoseconds as a function of the excitation energy. The comparative study between samples with perovskite deposited on substrates with and without the mesoporous layer has shown how the small crystals preserve the temperature of the carriers for a longer period after the excitation than the large crystals. This study showed how the high sensitivity of the time-resolved spectroscopies in discriminating the transient response due to the different morphology of the crystals embedded in the layers of the same sample can be applied in the general characterization of materials to be used in solar cell devices and large area modules, providing further and valuable information for the optimization and enhancement of stability and efficiency in the power conversion of new perovskite-based devices
Effects of crystal morphology on the hot-carrier dynamics in mixed-cation hybrid lead halide perovskites
Ultrafast pump-probe spectroscopies have proved to be an important tool for the investigation of charge carriers dynamics in perovskite materials providing crucial information on the dynamics of the excited carriers, and fundamental in the development of new devices with tailored photovoltaic properties. Fast transient absorbance spectroscopy on mixed-cation hybrid lead halide perovskite samples was used to investigate how the dimensions and the morphology of the perovskite crystals embedded in the capping (large crystals) and mesoporous (small crystals) layers affect the hot-carrier dynamics in the first hundreds of femtoseconds as a function of the excitation energy. The comparative study between samples with perovskite deposited on substrates with and without the mesoporous layer has shown how the small crystals preserve the temperature of the carriers for a longer period after the excitation than the large crystals. This study showed how the high sensitivity of the time-resolved spectroscopies in discriminating the transient response due to the different morphology of the crystals embedded in the layers of the same sample can be applied in the general characterization of materials to be used in solar cell devices and large area modules, providing further and valuable information for the optimization and enhancement of stability and efficiency in the power conversion of new perovskite-based devices
The role of steroids in the management of brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline
Do steroids improve neurologic symptoms in patients with metastatic brain tumors compared to no treatment? If steroids are given, what dose should be used? Comparisons include: (1) steroid therapy versus none. (2) comparison of different doses of steroid therapy.
Target population
These recommendations apply to adults diagnosed with brain metastases.
Recommendations
Steroid therapy versus no steroid therapy
Asymptomatic brain metastases patients without mass effect
Insufficient evidence exists to make a treatment recommendation for this clinical scenario.
Brain metastases patients with mild symptoms related to mass effect
Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. It is recommended for patients who are symptomatic from metastatic disease to the brain that a starting dose of 4–8 mg/day of dexamethasone be considered.
Brain metastases patients with moderate to severe symptoms related to mass effect
Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. If patients exhibit severe symptoms consistent with increased intracranial pressure, it is recommended that higher doses such as 16 mg/day or more be considered.
Choice of Steroid
Level 3 If corticosteroids are given, dexamethasone is the best drug choice given the available evidence.
Duration of Corticosteroid Administration
Level 3 Corticosteroids, if given, should be tapered slowly over a 2 week time period, or longer in symptomatic patients, based upon an individualized treatment regimen and a full understanding of the long-term sequelae of corticosteroid therapy.
Given the very limited number of studies (two) which met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review, these are the only recommendations that can be offered based on this methodology. Please see “Discussion” and “Summary” section for additional details
The role of chemotherapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline
TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with newly diagnosed brain metastases; however, the recommendation below does not apply to the exquisitely chemosensitive tumors, such as germinomas metastatic to the brain.
RECOMMENDATION: Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT)? Level 1 Routine use of chemotherapy following WBRT for brain metastases has not been shown to increase survival and is not recommended. Four class I studies examined the role of carboplatin, chloroethylnitrosoureas, tegafur and temozolomide, and all resulted in no survival benefit. Two caveats are provided in order to allow the treating physician to individualize decision-making: First, the majority of the data are limited to non small cell lung (NSCLC) and breast cancer; therefore, in other tumor histologies, the possibility of clinical benefit cannot be absolutely ruled out. Second, the addition of chemotherapy to WBRT improved response rates in some, but not all trials; response rate was not the primary endpoint in most of these trials and end-point assessment was non-centralized, non-blinded, and post-hoc. Enrollment in chemotherapy-related clinical trials is encouraged
Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study
none65noThe role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred.noneMilone, Marco; Degiuli, Maurizio; Velotti, Nunzio; Manigrasso, Michele; Vertaldi, Sara; D'Ugo, Domenico; De Palma, Giovanni Domenico; Dario Bruzzese, Giuseppe Servillo, Giuseppe De Simone, Katia Di Lauro, Silvia Sofia, Marco Ettore Allaix, Mario Morino, Rossella Reddavid, Carlo Alberto Ammirati, Stefano Scabini, Gabriele Anania, Cristina Bombardini, Andrea Barberis, Roberta Longhin, Andrea Belli, Francesco Bianco, Giampaolo Formisano, Giuseppe Giuliani, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Davide Cavaliere, Leonardo Solaini, Claudio Coco, Gianluca Rizzo, Andrea Coratti, Raffaele De Luca, Michele Simone, Alberto Di Leo, Giovanni De Manzoni, Paola De Nardi, Ugo Elmore, Riccardo Rosati, Andrea Vignali, Paolo Delrio, Ugo Pace, Daniela Rega, Antonio Di Cataldo, Giovanni Li Destri, Annibale Donini, Luigina Graziosi, Andrea Fontana, Michela Mineccia, Sergio Gentilli, Manuela Monni, Mario Guerrieri, Monica Ortenzi, Francesca Pecchini, Micaela Piccoli, Italy. Corrado Pedrazzani, Giulia Turri, Sara Pollesel, Franco Roviello, Marco Rigamonti, Michele Zuolo, Mauro Santarelli, Federica Saraceno, Pierpaolo Sileri Giuseppe Sigismondo Sica, Luigi Siragusa Salvatore Pucciarelli, Matteo ZuinMilone, Marco; Degiuli, Maurizio; Velotti, Nunzio; Manigrasso, Michele; Vertaldi, Sara; D'Ugo, Domenico; De Palma, Giovanni Domenico; Dario Bruzzese, Giuseppe Servillo, Giuseppe De Simone, Katia Di Lauro, Silvia Sofia, Marco Ettore Allaix, Mario Morino, Rossella Reddavid, Carlo Alberto Ammirati, Stefano Scabini, Gabriele Anania, Cristina Bombardini, Andrea Barberis, Roberta Longhin, Andrea Belli, Francesco Bianco, Giampaolo Formisano, Giuseppe Giuliani, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Davide Cavaliere, Leonardo Solaini, Claudio Coco, Gianluca Rizzo, Andrea Coratti, Raffaele De Luca, Michele Simone, Alberto Di Leo, Giovanni De Manzoni, Paola De Nardi, Ugo Elmore, Riccardo Rosati, Andrea Vignali, Paolo Delrio, Ugo Pace, Daniela Rega, Antonio Di Cataldo, Giovanni Li Destri, Annibale Donini, Luigina Graziosi, Andrea Fontana, Michela Mineccia, Sergio Gentilli, Manuela Monni, Mario Guerrieri, Monica Ortenzi, Francesca Pecchini, Micaela Piccoli, Italy. Corrado Pedrazzani, Giulia Turri, Sara Pollesel, Franco Roviello, Marco Rigamonti, Michele Zuolo, Mauro Santarelli, Federica Saraceno, Pierpaolo Sileri Giuseppe Sigismondo Sica, Luigi Siragusa Salvatore Pucciarelli, Matteo Zui
The role of retreatment in the management of recurrent/progressive brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline
QUESTION: What evidence is available regarding the use of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases?
TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with recurrent/progressive brain metastases who have previously been treated with WBRT, surgical resection and/or radiosurgery. Recurrent/progressive brain metastases are defined as metastases that recur/progress anywhere in the brain (original and/or non-original sites) after initial therapy.
RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 Since there is insufficient evidence to make definitive treatment recommendations in patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases, treatment should be individualized based on a patient\u27s functional status, extent of disease, volume/number of metastases, recurrence or progression at original versus non-original site, previous treatment and type of primary cancer, and enrollment in clinical trials is encouraged. In this context, the following can be recommended depending on a patient\u27s specific condition: no further treatment (supportive care), re-irradiation (either WBRT and/or SRS), surgical excision or, to a lesser extent, chemotherapy. Question If WBRT is used in the setting of recurrent/progressive brain metastases, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes? No studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria for this question
The role of whole brain radiation therapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline
QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo open surgical resection versus whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and/or other treatment modalities such as radiosurgery, and in what clinical settings?
TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgical resection plus WBRT versus surgical resection alone Level 1 Surgical resection followed by WBRT represents a superior treatment modality, in terms of improving tumor control at the original site of the metastasis and in the brain overall, when compared to surgical resection alone. Surgical resection plus WBRT versus SRS + or - WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (\u3e3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (\u3e1 cm midline shift). Level 3 Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. Note The following question is fully addressed in the WBRT guideline paper within this series by Gaspar et al. Given that the recommendation resulting from the systematic review of the literature on this topic is also highly relevant to the discussion of the role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below
- …