Endovascular Parent Vessel Occlusion Versus Flow Diversion in the Treatment of Large and Giant Aneurysms: A Randomized Comparison.

OBJECTIVE: Parent vessel occlusion (PVO) is a time-honored treatment for unclippable or uncoilable intracranial aneurysms. Flow diversion (FD) is a recent endovascular alternative that can occlude the aneurysm and spare the parent blood vessel. Our aim was to compare outcomes of FD with endovascular PVO. METHODS: This is a prespecified treatment subgroup analysis of the Flow diversion in Intracranial Aneurysms trial (FIAT). FIAT was an investigator-led parallel-group all-inclusive pragmatic randomized trial. For each patient, clinicians had to prespecify an alternative management option to FD before stratified randomization. We report all patients for whom PVO was selected as the best alternative treatment to FD. The primary outcome was a composite of core-lab determined angiographic occlusion or near-occlusion at 3-12 months combined with an independent clinical outcome (mRS<3). Primary analyses were intent-to-treat. There was no blinding. RESULTS: There were 45 patients (16.2% of the 278 FIAT patients randomized between 2011 and 2020 in 3 centers): 22 were randomly allocated to FD and 23 to PVO. Aneurysms were mainly large or giant (mean 22 mm) anterior circulation (mainly carotid) aneurysms. A poor primary outcome was reached in 11/22 FD (50.0%) compared to 9/23 PVO patients (39.1%) (RR: 1.28, 95% CI [0.66-2.47]; P = 0.466). Morbidity (mRS >2) at 1 year occurred in 4/22 FD and 6/23 PVO patients. Angiographic results and serious adverse events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The comparison between PVO and FD was inconclusive. More randomized trials are needed to better determine the role of FD in large aneurysms eligible for PVO.

Clinical Uncertainty and Equipoise in the Management of Recurrent Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of glioblastoma (GBM) patients are considered for repeat resection, but evidence regarding best management remains elusive. Our aim was to measure the degree of clinical uncertainty regarding reoperation for patients with recurrent GBM. METHODS: We first performed a systematic review of agreement studies examining the question of repeat resection for recurrent GBM. An electronic portfolio of 37 pathologically confirmed recurrent GBM patients including pertinent magnetic resonance images and clinical information was assembled. To measure clinical uncertainty, 26 neurosurgeons from various countries, training backgrounds, and years' experience were asked to select best management (repeat surgery, other nonsurgical management, or conservative), confidence in recommended management, and whether they would include the patient in a randomized trial comparing surgery with nonsurgical options. Agreement was evaluated using κ statistics. RESULTS: The literature review did not reveal previous agreement studies examining the question. In our study, agreement regarding best management of recurrent GBM was slight, even when management options were dichotomized (repeat surgery vs. other options; κ=0.198 [95% confidence interval: 0.133-0.276]). Country of practice, years' experience, and training background did not change results. Disagreement and clinical uncertainty were more pronounced within clinicians with (κ=0.167 [0.055-0.314]) than clinicians without neuro-oncology fellowship training (κ=0.601 [0.556-0.646]). A majority (51%) of responders were willing to include the patient in a randomized trial comparing repeat surgery with nonsurgical alternatives in 26/37 (69%) of cases. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient uncertainty and equipoise regarding the question of reoperation for patients with recurrent glioblastoma to support the need for a randomized controlled trial.