Topography and Radiological Variables as Ancillary Parameters for Evaluating Tissue Adherence, Hypothalamic-Pituitary Dysfunction, and Recurrence in Craniopharyngioma: An Integrated Multidisciplinary Overview.

Craniopharyngiomas continue to present a challenge in clinical practice due to their heterogeneity and unpredictable adherence to vital neurovascular structures, particularly the hypothalamus. This results in different degrees of hypothalamus-pituitary axis dysfunction and a lack of uniform consensus and treatment guidelines regarding optimal management. MRI and CT are complementary techniques in the preoperative diagnostic phase, enabling the precise definition of craniopharyngioma size, shape, and consistency, as well as guiding classification into histopathological subtypes and topographical categories. Meanwhile, MRI plays a crucial role in the immediate postoperative period and follow-up stages by identifying treatment-related changes and residual tumors. This pictorial essay aims to provide an overview of the role of imaging in identifying variables indicative of the adherence degree to the hypothalamus, hypothalamic-pituitary dysfunction, the extent of surgical excision, and prognosis. For a more comprehensive assessment, we choose to distinguish the following two scenarios: (1) the initial diagnosis phase, where we primarily discuss the role of radiological variables predictive of adhesions to the surrounding neurovascular structures and axis dysfunction which may influence the choice of surgical resection; (2) the early post-treatment follow-up phase, where we discuss the interpretation of treatment-related changes that impact outcomes.

Head CT Scans in the Emergency Department during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Use or Overuse?

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic seemed to mainly involve the respiratory system, but it was realized that it could affect any organ, including the CNS. The pandemic has followed a wave-like trend, with its peaks being due to the COVID-19 different variants and the introduction of the vaccine, which led to an apparent reduction in hospitalizations but also brought about perplexities related to its adverse effects. The aim of this study was to analyze the changes in the use of head CT/contrast CT and their impacts on the onset of cerebrovascular disease in our emergency department during the COVID-19 period and the vaccine rollout. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years old admitted to our emergency department from January 2018 to September 2021 were enrolled. The patients were divided into three groups. The COVID-19 period included patients who visited our emergency department from 1 March 2020 to 31 January 2021; the vaccine period was considered to range from 1 February 2021 to 30 September 2021. The patients who visited the emergency department from 1 January 2018 to 31 January 2020 were considered the controls. RESULTS: We found an increase in head CT/contrast CT requests during the COVID-19 period and increase in head contrast CT during the vaccine period, without an increase in the incidence of cerebrovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty regarding the possible thrombotic events associated with COVID-19 and its vaccine increased the relative use of head CT/contrast CT by about 20% compared to the control period.

Multidisciplinary ocular and periocular cancers meetings: implementation in a tertiary referral center and analysis over a 12-months period.

PURPOSE: The complexity of multimodal approaches in cancer management has lately led to the establishment of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) to define targeted, patient-centered treatment strategies. However, few data are available regarding the application of this approach in Ocular Oncology. Hereby, the Authors analyze the implementation and outcomes of a trained MDTB in a tertiary ocular oncology referral center. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive analysis of MDTB meetings discussing patients with ocular and periocular cancers, over a 12-months period, was carried out. Data were grouped by main site involved, topics discussed and final clinical decisions therefore taken. Meetings were held by a constant 'Core team' or - when required - by a broader 'Extended team'. RESULTS: During the observational period 86 cases were discussed. In 27 patients ocular surface tissues were involved (31%), in 25 patients orbital tissues (29%), in 22 patients eyelids (26%), and in 12 patients intraocular tissues (14%). In 13 cases (15%) naïve or referred new patients, in 34 cases (40%) imaging or histopathologic reports and in 39 cases (45%) treatment plans were discussed. Regarding final decisions, a treatment plan was scheduled in 47 cases (55%) and a diagnostic ascertainment was required in 27 patients (31%); locally advanced and/or systemic diseases were referred or teamed up with other specialists in 12 cases (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Ocular Oncology multidisciplinary team, by sharing expertise of different specialists, ensures a comprehensive evaluation of patients improving the accuracy of diagnosis and staging upon which planning a proper treatment. Further studies are needed to assess if this approach may also improve the outcomes and prognosis of patients.

Neuro-Oncology Multidisciplinary Tumor Board: The Point of View of the Neuroradiologist.

BACKGROUND: The multi-disciplinary tumor board (MTB) is essential to quality cancer care and currently recommended to offer the best personalized clinical approach, but little has been published regarding MTBs in neuro-oncology (nMTBs). The aim of the present paper is to describe our nMTB, to evaluate its impact on clinical management decisions, and to assess the role of neuroradiologists. METHODS: The retrospective evaluation of the cases discussed at our nMTB from March 2017 to March 2020. From the electronic records, we extracted epidemiological, clinical and other specific data of nMTB. From the radiological records, we calculated data relating to the number, time for revision, and other specifications of MRI re-evaluation. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: a total of 447 discussions were analyzed, representing 342 patients. The requests for case evaluations came from radiation oncologists (58.8%) and neurosurgeons (40.5%), and were mainly addressed to the neuroradiologist (73.8%). The most frequent questions were about the treatment's changes (64.4%). The change in patient treatment was reported in 40.5% of cases, 76.8% of these were based on the neuroradiologic assessment. A total of 1514 MRI examinations were re-evaluated, employing approximately 67 h overall. The median of the MRI exams reviewed per patient was 3 (min-max 1-12). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supported that the multidisciplinary approach to patient care can be particularly effective in managing brain tumors. A review by an expert neuroradiologist impacts patient management in the context of nMTBs, but has costs in terms of the time and effort spent preparing for it.