Giuseppe Barbagallo1,2, Massimiliano Maione3, Simone Peschillo3,4, Francesco Signorelli5, Massimiliano Visocchi6,7, Giuseppe Sortino4, Giuseppa Fiumanò4, Francesco Certo3,4. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Policlinico "G. Rodolico" University Hospital, Catania, Italy - gbarbagallo@unict.it. 2. Interdisciplinary Research Center on Brain Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment, University of Catania, Catania, Italy - gbarbagallo@unict.it. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, Policlinico "G. Rodolico" University Hospital, Catania, Italy. 4. Interdisciplinary Research Center on Brain Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Policlinico di Bari University Hospital, Bari, Italy. 6. Institute of Neurosurgery, Catholic University, Rome, Italy. 7. Department of Radiodiagnostic and Oncological Radiotherapy, University Hospital Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele, Catania, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brain tumor surgery is routinely supported by several intraoperative techniques, such as fluorescence, brain mapping and neuronavigation, which are often used independently. Efficacy of navigation is limited by the brain-shift phenomenon, particularly in cases of large or deep-sited lesions. Intraoperative imaging was introduced also to update neuronavigation data, to try and solve the brain-shift phenomenon-related pitfalls and increase overall safety. Nevertheless, each intraoperative imaging modality has some intrinsic limitations and technical shortcomings, making its clinical use challenging. We used a multimodal intraoperative imaging protocol to update neuronavigation, based on the combination of intraoperative Ultrasound (i-US) and intraoperative Computed Tomography (i-CT) integrated with 5-ALA fluorescence and neuromonitoring-guided resection. METHODS: This is a pilot study on 52 patients (29 men), including four children, with a mean age of 57.67 years, suffering from brain low- (10 patients) or high-grade (34 patients) glioma or metastasis (8 patients), prospectively and consecutively enrolled. They underwent 5-ALA fluorescence-guided microsurgical tumor resection and neuromonitoring was used in cases of lesions located in eloquent areas, according to pre-operative clinical and neuroradiological features. Navigated B-mode ultrasound acquisition was carried out after dural opening to identify the lesion. After tumor resection, i-US was used to identify residual tumor. Following further tumor resection or in cases of unclear US images, post-contrast i-CT was performed to detect and localize small tumor remnants and to allow further correction for brain shift. A final i-US check was performed to verify the completeness of resection. Clinical evaluation was based on comparison of pre- and post-operative Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) and assessment of Overall Survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS). Extent of tumor resection (EOTR) was evaluated by volumetric post-operative Magnetic Resonance performed within 48 h after surgery. RESULTS: Forty-one of the 52 (78.8%) patients were alive and still under follow-up in December 2017. 5-ALA was strongly or vaguely positive in 45 cases (86.5%). Seven lesions (4 low-grade glioma, 1 high-grade glioma and 2 metastases) were not fluorescent. i-US visualized residual tumor after resection of all fluorescent or pathological tissue in 22 cases (42.3%). After i-US guided resection, i-CT documented the presence of further residual tumor in 11 cases (21.1%). Mean EOTR was 98.79% in the low-grade gliomas group, 99.84% in the high-grade gliomas group and 100% in the metastases group. KPS changed from 77.88, pre-operatively, to 72.5, post-operatively. At the last follow-up, mean KPS was 84.23. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of different intraoperative imaging modalities may increase brain tumor safety and extent of resection. In particular, i-US seems to be highly sensitive to detect residual tumors, but it may generate false positives due to artifacts. Conversely, i-CT is more specific to localize remnants, allowing a more reliable updating of navigation data.
BACKGROUND:Brain tumor surgery is routinely supported by several intraoperative techniques, such as fluorescence, brain mapping and neuronavigation, which are often used independently. Efficacy of navigation is limited by the brain-shift phenomenon, particularly in cases of large or deep-sited lesions. Intraoperative imaging was introduced also to update neuronavigation data, to try and solve the brain-shift phenomenon-related pitfalls and increase overall safety. Nevertheless, each intraoperative imaging modality has some intrinsic limitations and technical shortcomings, making its clinical use challenging. We used a multimodal intraoperative imaging protocol to update neuronavigation, based on the combination of intraoperative Ultrasound (i-US) and intraoperative Computed Tomography (i-CT) integrated with 5-ALA fluorescence and neuromonitoring-guided resection. METHODS: This is a pilot study on 52 patients (29 men), including four children, with a mean age of 57.67 years, suffering from brain low- (10 patients) or high-grade (34 patients) glioma or metastasis (8 patients), prospectively and consecutively enrolled. They underwent 5-ALA fluorescence-guided microsurgical tumor resection and neuromonitoring was used in cases of lesions located in eloquent areas, according to pre-operative clinical and neuroradiological features. Navigated B-mode ultrasound acquisition was carried out after dural opening to identify the lesion. After tumor resection, i-US was used to identify residual tumor. Following further tumor resection or in cases of unclear US images, post-contrast i-CT was performed to detect and localize small tumor remnants and to allow further correction for brain shift. A final i-US check was performed to verify the completeness of resection. Clinical evaluation was based on comparison of pre- and post-operative Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) and assessment of Overall Survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS). Extent of tumor resection (EOTR) was evaluated by volumetric post-operative Magnetic Resonance performed within 48 h after surgery. RESULTS: Forty-one of the 52 (78.8%) patients were alive and still under follow-up in December 2017. 5-ALA was strongly or vaguely positive in 45 cases (86.5%). Seven lesions (4 low-grade glioma, 1 high-grade glioma and 2 metastases) were not fluorescent. i-US visualized residual tumor after resection of all fluorescent or pathological tissue in 22 cases (42.3%). After i-US guided resection, i-CT documented the presence of further residual tumor in 11 cases (21.1%). Mean EOTR was 98.79% in the low-grade gliomas group, 99.84% in the high-grade gliomas group and 100% in the metastases group. KPS changed from 77.88, pre-operatively, to 72.5, post-operatively. At the last follow-up, mean KPS was 84.23. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of different intraoperative imaging modalities may increase brain tumor safety and extent of resection. In particular, i-US seems to be highly sensitive to detect residual tumors, but it may generate false positives due to artifacts. Conversely, i-CT is more specific to localize remnants, allowing a more reliable updating of navigation data.
Authors: Jaejoon Lim; YoungJoon Park; Ju Won Ahn; So Jung Hwang; Hyouksang Kwon; Kyoung Su Sung; Kyunggi Cho Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Giuseppe Maria Vincenzo Barbagallo; Roberto Altieri; Marco Garozzo; Massimiliano Maione; Stefania Di Gregorio; Massimiliano Visocchi; Simone Peschillo; Pasquale Dolce; Francesco Certo Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Giuseppe Broggi; Francesco Certo; Roberto Altieri; Rosario Caltabiano; Marco Gessi; Giuseppe Maria Vincenzo Barbagallo Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2021-09-20
Authors: Giuseppe Roberto Giammalva; Gianluca Ferini; Sofia Musso; Giuseppe Salvaggio; Maria Angela Pino; Rosa Maria Gerardi; Lara Brunasso; Roberta Costanzo; Federica Paolini; Rina Di Bonaventura; Giuseppe Emmanuele Umana; Francesca Graziano; Paolo Palmisciano; Gianluca Scalia; Silvana Tumbiolo; Massimo Midiri; Domenico Gerardo Iacopino; Rosario Maugeri Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Onofrio Valente; Raffaella Messina; Giuseppe Ingravallo; Emilio Bellitti; Domenico Sergio Zimatore; Luigi de Gennaro; Pasqua Abbrescia; Roberta Pati; Claudia Palazzo; Grazia Paola Nicchia; Maria Trojano; Francesco Signorelli; Antonio Frigeri Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2022-02-20 Impact factor: 9.207
Authors: Nils Hecht; Marcus Czabanka; Paul Kendlbacher; Julia-Helene Raff; Georg Bohner; Peter Vajkoczy Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 2.216