Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Brain Spine ; 4: 102796, 2024.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38698806

RESUMO

Introduction: Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring (IOM) is widely used in neurosurgery but specific guidelines are lacking. Therefore, we can assume differences in IOM application between Neurosurgical centers. Research question: The section of Functional Neurosurgery of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery realized a survey aiming to obtain general data on the current practice of IOM in Italy. Materials and methods: A 22-item questionnaire was designed focusing on: volume procedures, indications, awake surgery, experience, organization and equipe. The questionnaire has been sent to Italian Neurosurgery centers. Results: A total of 54 centers completed the survey. The annual volume of surgeries range from 300 to 2000, and IOM is used in 10-20% of the procedures. In 46% of the cases is a neurologist or a neurophysiologist who performs IOM. For supra-tentorial pathology, almost all perform MEPs (94%) SSEPs (89%), direct cortical stimulation (85%). All centers perform IOM in spinal surgery and 95% in posterior fossa surgery. Among the 50% that perform peripheral nerve surgery, all use IOM. Awake surgery is performed by 70% of centers. The neurosurgeon is the only responsible for IOM in 35% of centers. In 83% of cases IOM implementation is adequate to the request. Discussion and conclusions: The Italian Neurosurgical centers perform IOM with high level of specialization, but differences exist in organization, techniques, and expertise. Our survey provides a snapshot of the state of the art in Italy and it could be a starting point to implement a consensus on the practice of IOM.

2.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 20101, 2023 11 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37973912

RESUMO

Our work reports implementation of a useful genetic diagnosis for the clinical managment of patients with astrocytic tumors. We investigated 313 prospectively recruited diffuse astrocytic tumours by applying the cIMPACT-NOW Update 3 signature. The cIMPACT-NOW Update 3 (cIMPACT-NOW 3) markers, i.e., alterations of TERT promoter, EGFR, and/or chromosome 7 and 10, characterized 96.4% of IDHwt cases. Interestingly, it was also found in 48,5% of IDHmut cases. According to the genomic profile, four genetic subgroups could be distinguished: (1) IDwt/cIMPACT-NOW 3 (n = 270); (2) IDHwt/cIMPACT-NOW 3 negative (= 10); (3) IDHmut/cIMPACT-NOW 3 (n = 16); and 4) IDHmut/cIMPACT-NOW 3 negative (n = 17). Multivariate analysis confirmed that IDH1/2 mutations confer a favorable prognosis (IDHwt, HR 2.91 95% CI 1.39-6.06), and validated the prognostic value of the cIMPACT-NOW 3 signature (cIMPACT-NOW 3, HR 2.15 95% CI 1.15-4.03). To accurately identify relevant prognostic categories, overcoming the limitations of histopathology and immunohistochemistry, molecular-cytogenetic analyses must be fully integrated into the diagnostic work-up of astrocytic tumors.


Assuntos
Astrocitoma , Neoplasias Encefálicas , Glioma , Telomerase , Humanos , Glioma/patologia , Neoplasias Encefálicas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Encefálicas/genética , Neoplasias Encefálicas/patologia , Isocitrato Desidrogenase/genética , Telomerase/genética , Astrocitoma/diagnóstico , Astrocitoma/genética , Prognóstico , Mutação , Medição de Risco
3.
Anticancer Res ; 40(6): 3387-3393, 2020 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32487635

RESUMO

AIM: To retrospectively assess toxicity and survival in 15 selected Glioblastoma patients treated with a sequential fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) boost after chemo-radiotherapy (CHT-RT) and compare their survival outcomes with a control group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Toxicity was assessed with the CTCAE 3.0 scale. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to design survival curves, log-rank test for bivariate analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression model for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 16 months (range=5-60). One case of headache and one of radionecrosis (RN) occurred. Median overall survival (OS) was 25 months in the boost group vs. 14 in the no-boost group (p=0.004). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 15 months in the boost group versus 8 in the no-boost group (p=0.046). At multivariate analysis FSRT boost resulted significantly associated with OS and PFS. CONCLUSION: In our series a sequential FSRT boost resulted in safe outcomes and significantly associated with survival.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Encefálicas/radioterapia , Fracionamento da Dose de Radiação , Glioblastoma/radioterapia , Radiocirurgia , Adulto , Idoso , Neoplasias Encefálicas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Encefálicas/mortalidade , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Glioblastoma/diagnóstico , Glioblastoma/mortalidade , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Radiocirurgia/métodos , Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador , Radioterapia Guiada por Imagem , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA