Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Mark Bernstein x
  • By Author: Chang, Susan M. x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Susan M. Chang, Ian F. Parney, Michael Mcdermott, Fred G. Barker II, Meic H. Schmidt, Wei Huang, Edward R. Laws Jr., Kevin O. Lillehei, Mark Bernstein, Henry Brem, Andrew E. Sloan, Mitchel Berger and the Glioma Outcomes Investigators

Object. In many new clinical trials of patients with malignant gliomas surgical intervention is incorporated as an integral part of tumor-directed interstitial therapies such as gene therapy, biodegradable wafer placement, and immunotherapy. Assessment of toxicity is a major component of evaluating these novel therapeutic interventions, but this must be done in light of known complication rates of craniotomy for tumor resection. Factors predicting neurological outcome would also be helpful for patient selection for surgically based clinical trials.

Methods. The Glioma Outcome Project is a prospectively compiled database containing information on 788 patients with malignant gliomas that captured clinical practice patterns and patient outcomes. Patients in this series who underwent their first or second craniotomy were analyzed separately for presenting symptoms, tumor and patient characteristics, and perioperative complications. Preoperative and intraoperative factors possibly related to neurological outcome were evaluated.

There were 408 patients who underwent first craniotomies (C1 group) and 91 patients who underwent second ones (C2 group). Both groups had similar patient and tumor characteristics except for their median age (55 years in the C1 group compared with 50 years in the C2 group; p = 0.006). Headache was more common at presentation in the C1 group, whereas papilledema and an altered level of consciousness were more common at presentation in patients undergoing second surgeries. Perioperative complications occurred in 24% of patients in the C1 group and 33% of patients in the C2 group (p = 0.1). Most patients were the same or better neurologically after surgery, but more patients in the C2 group (18%) displayed a worsened neurological status than those in the C1 group (8%; p = 0.007). The Karnofsky Performance Scale score and, in patients in the C2 group, tumor size were important neurological outcome predictors. Regional complications occurred at similar rates in both groups. Systemic infections occurred more frequently in the C2 group (4.4 compared with 0%; p < 0.0001) as did depression (20 compared with 11%; p = 0.02). The perioperative mortality rate was 1.5% for the C1 group and 2.2% for the C2 group (p = not significant). The median length of the hospital stay was 4 days in each group.

Conclusions. Perioperative complications occur slightly more often following a second craniotomy for malignant glioma than after the first craniotomy. This should be considered when evaluating toxicities from intraoperative local therapies requiring craniotomy. Nevertheless, most patients are neurologically stable or improved after either their first or second craniotomy. This data set may serve as a benchmark for neurosurgeons and others in a discussion of operative risks in patients with malignant gliomas.

Restricted access

Edward F. Chang, Aaron Clark, Randy L. Jensen, Mark Bernstein, Abhijit Guha, Giorgio Carrabba, Debabrata Mukhopadhyay, Won Kim, Linda M. Liau, Susan M. Chang, Justin S. Smith, Mitchel S. Berger and Michael W. McDermott

Object

Medical and surgical management of low-grade gliomas (LGGs) is complicated by a highly variable clinical course. The authors recently developed a preoperative scoring system to prognosticate outcomes of progression and survival in a cohort of patients treated at a single institution (University of California, San Francisco [UCSF]). The objective of this study was to validate the scoring system in a large patient group drawn from multiple external institutions.

Methods

Clinical data from 3 outside institutions (University of Utah, Toronto Western Hospital, and University of California, Los Angeles) were collected for 256 patients (external validation set). Patients were assigned a prognostic score based upon the sum of points assigned to the presence of each of the 4 following factors: 1) location of tumor in presumed eloquent cortex, 2) Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) Score ≤ 80, 3) age > 50 years, and 4) maximum diameter > 4 cm. A chi-square analysis was used to analyze categorical differences between the institutions; Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to confirm that the individual factors were associated with shorter overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); and Kaplan–Meier curves estimated OS and PFS for the score groups. Differences between score groups were analyzed by the log-rank test.

Results

The median OS duration was 120 months, and there was no significant difference in survival between the institutions. Cox proportional hazard modeling confirmed that the 4 components of the UCSF Low-Grade Glioma Scoring System were associated with lower OS in the external validation set; presumed eloquent location (hazard ratio [HR] 2.04, 95% CI 1.28–2.56), KPS score ≤ 80 (HR 5.88, 95% CI 2.44–13.7), age > 50 years (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.02–3.23), and maximum tumor diameter > 4 cm (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.58–4.35). The stratification of patients based on scores generated groups (0–4) with statistically different OS and PFS estimates (p < 0.0001, log-rank test). Lastly, the UCSF patient group (construction set) was combined with the external validation set (total of 537 patients) and analyzed for OS and PFS. For all patients, the 5-year survival probability was 0.79; the 5-year cumulative OS probabilities stratified by score group were: score of 0, 0.98; score of 1, 0.90; score of 2, 0.81; score of 3, 0.53; and score of 4, 0.46.

Conclusions

The UCSF scoring system accurately predicted OS and PFS in an external large, multiinstitutional population of patients with LGGs. The strengths of this system include ease of use and ability to be applied preoperatively, with the eventual goal of aiding in the design of individualized treatment plans for patients with LGG at diagnosis.