Shivaram Avula1, Tim Jaspan2, Barry Pizer3, Benedetta Pettorini4, Deborah Garlick5, Dawn Hennigan4, Conor Mallucci4. 1. Department of Radiology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, East Prescot Road, Liverpool, L14 5AB, UK. shivaram.avula@alderhey.nhs.uk. 2. Department ofRadiology, Nottingham University Hospitals, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK. 3. Department of Oncology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, East Prescot Road, Liverpool, L14 5AB, UK. 4. Department of Neuro-surgery, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, East Prescot Road, Liverpool, L14 5AB, UK. 5. Department of Radiology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, East Prescot Road, Liverpool, L14 5AB, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intraoperative MRI (ioMRI) is a valuable tool aiding paediatric brain tumour resection. There is no published evidence comparing the effectiveness of the final intraoperative MRI and early post-operative (24-72 h) MRI as baseline scans following brain tumour resection. We aimed to evaluate whether the final ioMRI scan could serve as the post-operative baseline scan after paediatric brain tumour resections. METHODS: This prospective study compared the final ioMRI scan with the immediate post-operative MRI scan performed 24-72 h post-surgery. We included 20 patients aged 6.6-21 years undergoing brain tumour resection using ioMRI and were suitable for MRI scan without general anaesthesia. The scans were independently evaluated by experienced local and external paediatric neuroradiologists. Identical sequences in the final ioMRI and the 24-72-h MRI were compared to assess the extent of resection, imaging characteristics of residual tumour, the surgical field, extent of surgically induced contrast enhancement, and diffusion abnormalities. RESULTS: In 20 patients undergoing intraoperative and early post-operative MRI, there was no difference between ioMRI and 24-72-h post-op scans in identifying residual tumour. Surgically induced contrast enhancement was similar in both groups. There were more abnormalities on diffusion imaging and a greater degree of oedema around the surgical cavity on the 24-72-h scan. CONCLUSION: The final 3-T ioMRI scan may be used as a baseline post-operative scan provided standard imaging guidelines are followed and is evaluated jointly by the operating neurosurgeon and neuroradiologist. Advantages of final ioMRI as a baseline scan are identified.
PURPOSE: Intraoperative MRI (ioMRI) is a valuable tool aiding paediatric brain tumour resection. There is no published evidence comparing the effectiveness of the final intraoperative MRI and early post-operative (24-72 h) MRI as baseline scans following brain tumour resection. We aimed to evaluate whether the final ioMRI scan could serve as the post-operative baseline scan after paediatric brain tumour resections. METHODS: This prospective study compared the final ioMRI scan with the immediate post-operative MRI scan performed 24-72 h post-surgery. We included 20 patients aged 6.6-21 years undergoing brain tumour resection using ioMRI and were suitable for MRI scan without general anaesthesia. The scans were independently evaluated by experienced local and external paediatric neuroradiologists. Identical sequences in the final ioMRI and the 24-72-h MRI were compared to assess the extent of resection, imaging characteristics of residual tumour, the surgical field, extent of surgically induced contrast enhancement, and diffusion abnormalities. RESULTS: In 20 patients undergoing intraoperative and early post-operative MRI, there was no difference between ioMRI and 24-72-h post-op scans in identifying residual tumour. Surgically induced contrast enhancement was similar in both groups. There were more abnormalities on diffusion imaging and a greater degree of oedema around the surgical cavity on the 24-72-h scan. CONCLUSION: The final 3-T ioMRI scan may be used as a baseline post-operative scan provided standard imaging guidelines are followed and is evaluated jointly by the operating neurosurgeon and neuroradiologist. Advantages of final ioMRI as a baseline scan are identified.
Authors: Katherine E Warren; Gilbert Vezina; Tina Y Poussaint; Monika Warmuth-Metz; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger J Packer; Alba A Brandes; Moshe Reiss; Stewart Goldman; Michael J Fisher; Ian F Pollack; Michael D Prados; Patrick Y Wen; Susan M Chang; Christelle Dufour; David Zurakowski; Rolf D Kortmann; Mark W Kieran Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Jason Fangusaro; Olaf Witt; Pablo Hernáiz Driever; Asim K Bag; Peter de Blank; Nadja Kadom; Lindsay Kilburn; Robert M Lober; Nathan J Robison; Michael J Fisher; Roger J Packer; Tina Young Poussaint; Ludmila Papusha; Shivaram Avula; Alba A Brandes; Eric Bouffet; Daniel Bowers; Anton Artemov; Murali Chintagumpala; David Zurakowski; Martin van den Bent; Brigitte Bison; Kristen W Yeom; Walter Taal; Katherine E Warren Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Tabitha M Cooney; Kenneth J Cohen; Carolina V Guimaraes; Girish Dhall; James Leach; Maura Massimino; Alessandra Erbetta; Luisa Chiapparini; Fatema Malbari; Kim Kramer; Ian F Pollack; Patricia Baxter; Suzanne Laughlin; Zoltán Patay; Tina Young Poussaint; Katherine E Warren Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: P A Forsyth; E Petrov; H Mahallati; J G Cairncross; P Brasher; M E MacRae; N A Hagen; P Barnes; R J Sevick Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Craig Erker; Benita Tamrazi; Tina Y Poussaint; Sabine Mueller; Daddy Mata-Mbemba; Enrico Franceschi; Alba A Brandes; Arvind Rao; Kellie B Haworth; Patrick Y Wen; Stewart Goldman; Gilbert Vezina; Tobey J MacDonald; Ira J Dunkel; Paul S Morgan; Tim Jaspan; Michael D Prados; Katherine E Warren Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 54.433
Authors: Carlo Giussani; Andrea Trezza; Vittorio Ricciuti; Andrea Di Cristofori; Andrea Held; Valeria Isella; Maura Massimino Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 1.532