RESUMEN
PURPOSE: A dedicated magnetic resonance imaging simulation (MRsim) for radiation treatment (RT) planning in patients with high-grade glioma (HGG) can detect early radiologic changes, including tumor progression after surgery and before standard of care chemoradiation. This study aimed to determine the effect of using postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) versus MRsim as the baseline for response assessment and reporting pseudoprogression on follow-up imaging at 1 month (FU1) after chemoradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Histologically confirmed patients with HGG were planned for 6 weeks of RT in a prospective study for adaptive RT planning. All patients underwent postoperative MRI, MRsim, and follow-up MRI scans every 2 to 3 months. Tumor response was assessed by 3 independent blinded reviewers using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria when baseline was either postoperative MRI or MRsim. Interobserver agreement was calculated using Light's kappa. RESULTS: Thirty patients (median age, 60.5 years; IQR, 54.5-66.3) were included. Median interval between surgery and RT was 34 days (IQR, 27-41). Response assessment at FU1 differed in 17 patients (57%) when the baseline was postoperative MRI versus MRsim, including true progression versus partial response or stable disease in 11 (37%) and stable disease versus partial response in 6 (20%) patients. True progression was reported in 19 patients (63.3%) on FU1 when the baseline was postoperative MRI versus 8 patients (26.7%) when the baseline was MRsim (P = .004). Pseudoprogression was observed at FU1 in 12 (40%) versus 4 (13%) patients, when the baseline was postoperative MRI versus MRsim (P = .019). Interobserver agreement between observers was moderate (κ = 0.579; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the value of acquiring an updated MR closer to RT in patients with HGG to improve response assessment, and accuracy in evaluation of pseudoprogression even at the early time point of first follow-up after RT. Earlier identification of patients with true progression would enable more timely salvage treatments including potential clinical trial enrollment to improve patient outcomes.
RESUMEN
Background: Given differences in residency training background, there has been increasing interest in characterizing differential outcomes between orthopaedic surgeons (OS) and neurosurgeons (NS) with regards to outcomes after cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). This study aimed to assess if there were differences in perioperative outcomes of CDA between OS and NS. Methods: Patients who underwent a single-level CDA between 2012 and 2019 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database using current procedural terminology codes. The patients were subsequently stratified into those who underwent CDA with OS versus NS, and propensity score-matched to adjust for differences in patient characteristics. Differences were assessed in medical and surgical complications, as well as operative time and healthcare utilization parameters [reoperations, readmissions, and lengths-of-stay (LOS)]. Results: A total of 2,148 patients were identified (NS: n=1,395; OS: n=753). After 1:1 propensity score matching (n=741 each), there were no differences in characteristics between patients who underwent CDA by OS versus NS (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in any of the medical or surgical complications between the two groups (P>0.05 for each). There was a significant difference in the operative time between NS and OS (103.7±36.18 vs. 98.75±36.69 minutes; P=0.009). There were no significant differences in readmissions, reoperations, or LOS between the two groups (P>0.05 for each). Conclusions: There were no differences in medical or surgical complications, as well as in reoperations, readmissions, and LOS in patients who underwent a single-level CDA between OS and NS. There was a statistically significant shorter operative time of four minutes for OS as compared to NS, which is unlikely to have clinical relevance.