Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Andrew J. Gogos x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Jacob S. Young, Andrew J. Gogos, Matheus P. Pereira, Ramin A. Morshed, Jing Li, Matthew J. Barkovich, Shawn L. Hervey-Jumper, and Mitchel S. Berger

OBJECTIVE

Tumor proximity to the ventricle and ventricular entry (VE) during surgery have both been associated with worse prognoses; however, the interaction between these two factors is poorly understood. Given the benefit of maximal tumor resection, it is imperative for surgical planning and technique to know if VE has negative consequences for patient survival and tumor dissemination.

METHODS

The University of California, San Francisco tumor registry was searched for patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent supratentorial glioblastoma (GBM) who underwent resection by the senior author between 2013 and 2018. Tumor location with respect to the subventricular zone (SVZ), size, and extent of resection were assessed using pre- and postoperative imaging. VE was determined by postoperative imaging and/or the operative report.

RESULTS

In this 200-patient cohort of newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM, 26.5% of patients had VE during resection. Patients with VE were more likely to have preexisting subependymal disease (41.5% vs 15.0%, p < 0.001). Comparing patients with VE to those without VE, there was no difference in the rates of postoperative hydrocephalus (1.9% vs 4.8%, p = 0.36), ventriculoperitoneal shunting (0% vs 3.4%, p = 0.17), pseudomeningoceles (7.5% vs 5.4%, p = 0.58), or subdural hematomas (11.3% vs 3.4%, p = 0.07). Importantly, rates of subsequent leptomeningeal disease (7.5% vs 10.2%, p = 0.57) and distant parenchymal recurrence (17.0% vs 23.1%, p = 0.35) were not different between the groups. Newly diagnosed patients with tumors contacting the SVZ (type I or II) had worse survival than patients with tumors that did not contact the SVZ (type III or IV) (1.27 vs 1.84 years, p = 0.014, HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.08–3.03), but VE was not associated with worse survival in these patients with high-risk SVZ type I and II tumors (1.15 vs 1.68 years, p = 0.151, HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.26–1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

VE was well tolerated, with postoperative complications being rare events. There was no increase in leptomeningeal spread or distant parenchymal recurrence in patients with VE. Finally, although survival was worse for patients with preoperative subependymal disease, VE did not change survival for patients with tumors contacting the ventricle. Therefore, VE during GBM resection is not associated with adverse patient outcomes and should be used by surgeons to enhance extent of resection.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE Type of question: therapeutic; study design: retrospective cohort; evidence: class II.

Restricted access

Andrew J. Gogos, Jacob S. Young, Matheus P. Pereira, Ramin A. Morshed, Matthew B. Potts, Shawn L. Hervey-Jumper, and Mitchel S. Berger

OBJECTIVE

Although most patients with low-grade glioma (LGG) present after a seizure, a small proportion is diagnosed after neuroimaging is performed for a sign or symptom unrelated to the tumor. While these tumors invariably grow, some surgeons argue for a watchful waiting approach. Here, the authors report on their experience in the surgical treatment of patients with incidental LGG (iLGG) and describe the neurological outcomes, survival, and complications.

METHODS

Relevant cases were identified from a prospective registry of patients undergoing glioma resection at the University of California, San Francisco, between 1997 and 2019. Cases were considered iLGG when the lesion was noted on imaging performed for a reason unrelated to the tumor. Demographic, clinical, pathological, and imaging data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Tumor volumes, growth, and extent of resection were calculated from pre- and postoperative volumetric FLAIR sequences.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen of 657 (17.2%) first-time resections for LGG were for incidental lesions. The most common reasons for the discovery of an iLGG were headaches (without mass effect, 34.5%) or trauma (16.8%). Incidental tumors were no different from symptomatic lesions in terms of laterality or location, but they were significantly smaller (22.5 vs 57.5 cm3, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in diagnosis between patients with iLGG and those with symptomatic LGG (sLGG), incorporating both molecular and pathological data. The median preoperative observation time for iLGG was 3.1 months (range 1 month–12 years), and there was a median growth rate of 3.9 cm3/year. Complete resection of the FLAIR abnormality was achieved in 57% of patients with incidental lesions but only 23.8% of symptomatic lesions (p < 0.001), and the residual volumes were smaller for iLGGs (2.9 vs 13.5 cm3, p < 0.0001). Overall survival was significantly longer for patients with incidental tumors (median survival not reached for patients with iLGG vs 14.6 years for those with sLGG, p < 0.0001). There was a 4.4% rate of neurological deficits at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors present the largest cohort of iLGGs. Patient age, tumor location, and molecular genetics were not different between iLGGs and sLGGs. Incidental tumors were smaller, a greater extent of resection could be achieved, and overall survival was improved compared to those for patients with sLGG. Operative morbidity and rates of neurological deficit were acceptably low; thus, the authors advocate upfront surgical intervention aimed at maximal safe resection for these incidentally discovered lesions.

Restricted access

Andrew J. Gogos, Jacob S. Young, Ramin A. Morshed, Lauro N. Avalos, Roger S. Noss, Javier E. Villanueva-Meyer, Shawn L. Hervey-Jumper, and Mitchel S. Berger

OBJECTIVE

Maximal safe resection of gliomas near motor pathways is facilitated by intraoperative mapping. The authors and other groups have described the use of bipolar or monopolar direct stimulation to identify functional tissue, as well as transcranial or transcortical motor evoked potentials (MEPs) to monitor motor pathways. Here, the authors describe their initial experience using all 3 modalities to identify, monitor, and preserve cortical and subcortical motor systems during glioma surgery.

METHODS

Intraoperative mapping data were extracted from a prospective registry of glioma resections near motor pathways. Additional demographic, clinical, pathological, and imaging data were extracted from the electronic medical record. All patients with new or worsened postoperative motor deficits were followed for at least 6 months.

RESULTS

Between January 2018 and August 2019, 59 operations were performed in 58 patients. Overall, patients in 6 cases (10.2%) had new or worse immediate postoperative deficits. Patients with temporary deficits all had at least Medical Research Council grade 4/5 power. Only 2 patients (3.4%) had permanently worsened deficits after 6 months, both of which were associated with diffusion restriction consistent with ischemia within the corticospinal tract. One patient’s deficit improved to 4/5 and the other to 4/5 proximally and 3/5 distally in the lower limb, allowing ambulation following rehabilitation. Subcortical motor pathways were identified in 51 cases (86.4%) with monopolar high-frequency stimulation, but only in 6 patients using bipolar stimulation. Transcranial or cortical MEPs were diminished in only 6 cases, 3 of which had new or worsened deficits, with 1 permanent deficit. Insula location (p = 0.001) and reduction in MEPs (p = 0.01) were the only univariate predictors of new or worsened postoperative deficits. Insula location was the only predictor of permanent deficits (p = 0.046). The median extent of resection was 98.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Asleep triple motor mapping is safe and resulted in a low rate of deficits without compromising the extent of resection.