Matthew R Solomons1, Zane Jaunmuktane2, Rimona S Weil1,3,4, Tedani El-Hassan2,4, Sebastian Brandner2, Jeremy H Rees1,3. 1. National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK. 2. Division of Neuropathology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, UK. 4. Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a trend toward earlier and more aggressive resection for low-grade gliomas (LGGs). This study set out to compare seizure control and survival of adults with LGG seen in the same neuro-oncology clinic over 11 years and to determine whether a change in surgical philosophy has led to a corresponding improvement in outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using case-note review of 153 adults with histologically verified or radiologically suspected LGG, collecting data on patient, tumor, and seizure characteristics between 2006 and 2017. RESULTS: We studied 79 patients in 2006 and 74 patients in 2017. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in age at presentation, tumor location, or integrated pathological diagnosis. The numbers of complete or partial resections increased from 21.5% in 2006 to 60.8% in 2017 (P < .05). Five- and 10-year overall survival increased from 81.8% and 51.7% in 2006 to 100% and 95.8% in 2017 (P < .001); similarly, 5- and 10-year progression-free survival increased from 47.0% and 30.7% in 2006 to 93.1% and 68.7% in 2017. The proportion of patients with intractable epilepsy declined from 72.2% in 2006 to 43.2% in 2017 (P < .05). The neurosurgical morbidity rate was identical in both groups (11.8% in 2006 vs 11.1% in 2017). CONCLUSION: Management of LGG over the last 11 years has led to substantial improvements in survival and seizure control. This is most likely thanks to a change in surgical philosophy, with early resection now favored over watchful waiting where possible.
BACKGROUND: There has been a trend toward earlier and more aggressive resection for low-grade gliomas (LGGs). This study set out to compare seizure control and survival of adults with LGG seen in the same neuro-oncology clinic over 11 years and to determine whether a change in surgical philosophy has led to a corresponding improvement in outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using case-note review of 153 adults with histologically verified or radiologically suspected LGG, collecting data on patient, tumor, and seizure characteristics between 2006 and 2017. RESULTS: We studied 79 patients in 2006 and 74 patients in 2017. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in age at presentation, tumor location, or integrated pathological diagnosis. The numbers of complete or partial resections increased from 21.5% in 2006 to 60.8% in 2017 (P < .05). Five- and 10-year overall survival increased from 81.8% and 51.7% in 2006 to 100% and 95.8% in 2017 (P < .001); similarly, 5- and 10-year progression-free survival increased from 47.0% and 30.7% in 2006 to 93.1% and 68.7% in 2017. The proportion of patients with intractable epilepsy declined from 72.2% in 2006 to 43.2% in 2017 (P < .05). The neurosurgical morbidity rate was identical in both groups (11.8% in 2006 vs 11.1% in 2017). CONCLUSION: Management of LGG over the last 11 years has led to substantial improvements in survival and seizure control. This is most likely thanks to a change in surgical philosophy, with early resection now favored over watchful waiting where possible.
Authors: Jan C Buckner; Edward G Shaw; Stephanie L Pugh; Arnab Chakravarti; Mark R Gilbert; Geoffrey R Barger; Stephen Coons; Peter Ricci; Dennis Bullard; Paul D Brown; Keith Stelzer; David Brachman; John H Suh; Christopher J Schultz; Jean-Paul Bahary; Barbara J Fisher; Harold Kim; Albert D Murtha; Erica H Bell; Minhee Won; Minesh P Mehta; Walter J Curran Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: A Pace; L Bove; P Innocenti; A Pietrangeli; C M Carapella; P Oppido; L Raus; E Occhipinti; B Jandolo Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 1998-12
Authors: M J van den Bent; D Afra; O de Witte; M Ben Hassel; S Schraub; K Hoang-Xuan; P-O Malmström; L Collette; M Piérart; R Mirimanoff; A B M F Karim Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Sep 17-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Edward G Shaw; Brian Berkey; Stephen W Coons; Dennis Bullard; David Brachman; Jan C Buckner; Keith J Stelzer; Geoffrey R Barger; Paul D Brown; Mark R Gilbert; Minesh Mehta Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Edward F Chang; Matthew B Potts; G Evren Keles; Kathleen R Lamborn; Susan M Chang; Nicholas M Barbaro; Mitchel S Berger Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Maarten M J Wijnenga; Pim J French; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Winand N M Dinjens; Peggy N Atmodimedjo; Johan M Kros; Marion Smits; Renske Gahrmann; Geert-Jan Rutten; Jeroen B Verheul; Ruth Fleischeuer; Clemens M F Dirven; Arnaud J P E Vincent; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: A S Jakola; A J Skjulsvik; K S Myrmel; K Sjåvik; G Unsgård; S H Torp; K Aaberg; T Berg; H Y Dai; K Johnsen; R Kloster; O Solheim Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 32.976