Atsushi Fukui1, Yoshihiro Muragaki2,3, Taiichi Saito1,4, Masayuki Nitta1,4, Shunsuke Tsuzuki1,4, Hidetsugu Asano4, Takakazu Kawamata1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan. ymuragaki@twmu.ac.jp. 3. Faculty of Advanced Techno-Surgery, Institute of Advanced Biomedical Engineering and Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan. ymuragaki@twmu.ac.jp. 4. Faculty of Advanced Techno-Surgery, Institute of Advanced Biomedical Engineering and Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Awake craniotomy (AC) with intraoperative mapping is the best approach to preserve neurological function for glioma surgery in eloquent or near eloquent areas, but whether AC improves the extent of resection (EOR) and overall survival (OS) is controversial. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of glioma resection under AC with those under general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: Data of 335 patients who underwent surgery with intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging for newly diagnosed gliomas of World Health Organization (WHO) grades II-IV between 2000 and 2013 were reviewed. EOR and OS were quantitatively compared between the AC and GA groups after 1:1 propensity score matching. The two groups were matched for age, preoperative Karnofsky performance status (KPS), tumor location, and pathology. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 91 pairs were obtained. The median EOR was 96.1% (interquartile range [IQR] 7.3) and 97.4% (IQR 14.4) in the AC and GA groups, respectively (p = 0.31). Median KPS score 3 months after surgery was 90 (IQR 20) in both groups (p = 0.384). The median survival times were 163.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 77.9-248.7) and 143.5 months (95% CI 94.4-192.7) in the AC and GA groups, respectively (p = 0.585). CONCLUSION: Even if the glioma was within or close to the eloquent area, AC was comparable with GA in terms of EOR and OS. In case of difficulties in randomizing patients with eloquent or near eloquent glioma, our propensity score-matched analysis provides retrospective evidence that AC can obtain EOR and OS equivalent to removing glioma under GA.
PURPOSE: Awake craniotomy (AC) with intraoperative mapping is the best approach to preserve neurological function for glioma surgery in eloquent or near eloquent areas, but whether AC improves the extent of resection (EOR) and overall survival (OS) is controversial. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of glioma resection under AC with those under general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: Data of 335 patients who underwent surgery with intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging for newly diagnosed gliomas of World Health Organization (WHO) grades II-IV between 2000 and 2013 were reviewed. EOR and OS were quantitatively compared between the AC and GA groups after 1:1 propensity score matching. The two groups were matched for age, preoperative Karnofsky performance status (KPS), tumor location, and pathology. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 91 pairs were obtained. The median EOR was 96.1% (interquartile range [IQR] 7.3) and 97.4% (IQR 14.4) in the AC and GA groups, respectively (p = 0.31). Median KPS score 3 months after surgery was 90 (IQR 20) in both groups (p = 0.384). The median survival times were 163.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 77.9-248.7) and 143.5 months (95% CI 94.4-192.7) in the AC and GA groups, respectively (p = 0.585). CONCLUSION: Even if the glioma was within or close to the eloquent area, AC was comparable with GA in terms of EOR and OS. In case of difficulties in randomizing patients with eloquent or near eloquent glioma, our propensity score-matched analysis provides retrospective evidence that AC can obtain EOR and OS equivalent to removing glioma under GA.
Authors: Philip C De Witt Hamer; Santiago Gil Robles; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Hugues Duffau; Mitchel S Berger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H Duffau; M Lopes; F Arthuis; A Bitar; J-P Sichez; R Van Effenterre; L Capelle Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Edward F Chang; Aaron Clark; Justin S Smith; Mei-Yin Polley; Susan M Chang; Nicholas M Barbaro; Andrew T Parsa; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2010-07-16 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Tyler Brown; Ashish H Shah; Amade Bregy; Nirav H Shah; Michael Thambuswamy; Eric Barbarite; Thomas Fuhrman; Ricardo J Komotar Journal: J Neurosurg Anesthesiol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.956
Authors: Lucas Alverne F Albuquerque; João Paulo Almeida; Leonardo José Monteiro de Macêdo Filho; Andrei F Joaquim; Hugues Duffau Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Daniel H Lachance; Annette M Molinaro; Kyle M Walsh; Paul A Decker; Hugues Sicotte; Melike Pekmezci; Terri Rice; Matt L Kosel; Ivan V Smirnov; Gobinda Sarkar; Alissa A Caron; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Corinne E Praska; Anisha R Chada; Chandralekha Halder; Helen M Hansen; Lucie S McCoy; Paige M Bracci; Roxanne Marshall; Shichun Zheng; Gerald F Reis; Alexander R Pico; Brian P O'Neill; Jan C Buckner; Caterina Giannini; Jason T Huse; Arie Perry; Tarik Tihan; Mitchell S Berger; Susan M Chang; Michael D Prados; Joseph Wiemels; John K Wiencke; Margaret R Wrensch; Robert B Jenkins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Timothy J Brown; Matthew C Brennan; Michael Li; Ephraim W Church; Nicholas J Brandmeir; Kevin L Rakszawski; Akshal S Patel; Elias B Rizk; Dima Suki; Raymond Sawaya; Michael Glantz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 31.777