Insurance Disparities in Patient Outcomes and Healthcare Resource Utilization Following Neonatal Intraventricular Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Within the field of pediatric neurosurgery, insurance status has been shown to be associated with surgical delay, longer time to referral, and longer hospitalization in epilepsy treatment, myelomeningocele repair, and spasticity surgery.1,2 The aim of this study was to investigate the association of insurance status with inpatient adverse events (AEs), length of stay (LOS), and costs for newborns diagnosed with intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the 2016-2019 National Inpatient Sample database. Patients with a primary diagnosis of intraventricular hemorrhage were identified using ICD-10-CM diagnostic and procedural codes. Patients were categorized based on insurance status: Medicaid or Private Insurance (PI). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the impact of insurance status on extended LOS (defined as >75th percentile of LOS) and exorbitant cost (defined as >75th percentile of cost). RESULTS: Demographics differed significantly between groups, with the majority of newborns in the PI cohort being White (Medicaid: 35.8% vs. PI: 60.3%, P < 0.001) and the majority of Medicaid patients being in the 0-25th quartile of household income (Medicaid: 40.9% vs. PI: 12.9%, P < 0.001). While insurance status was not independently associated with increased odds of extended LOS or exorbitant cost, Medicaid patients had a greater mean LOS and total cost of admission than PI patients. CONCLUSIONS: Demographic characteristics, mean LOS, and mean total cost differed significantly between Medicaid and PI patients, indicating potential disparities based on insurance status. However, insurance status was not independently associated with increased healthcare utilization, necessitating further research in this area of study.

Selected-Lesion Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SL-SRS) as a Novel Strategy in the Treatment of Patients With Multiple Brain Metastases.

INTRODUCTION: With the diminishing use of whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), there is increasing debate regarding the maximum number of brain metastases that should be treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). In patients with >10-15 lesions, some groups are proposing a new approach - selected-lesion SRS (SL-SRS) - where only a subset of intracranial lesions are chosen for irradiation. This study is an initial look into this practice. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional exploratory survey study. A survey of 19 questions was created by the International Radiosurgery Research Foundation (IRRF) using open-ended and multiple-choice style questions on SL-SRS practices and indications with the goal of qualitatively understanding how SL-SRS is being implemented worldwide. The survey was distributed to physicians in the United States (US) and internationally who are members of the IRRF and who perform SRS frequently. Ten out of 50 IRRF institutions provided responses reflecting the practices of 16 physicians. RESULTS: SL-SRS is being performed at 8/10 institutions. The most common reasons for using SL-SRS included patients with prior WBRT, patients with progressing systemic disease with central nervous system (CNS)-penetrating or immunotherapies available, specific requests from medical oncology, and cooperative studies using this approach. Lesion size was cited as the most important factor when choosing to irradiate any single lesion. The majority of respondents reported 30 mm and 40 mm as size cutoffs (by largest dimension) for treatment of a lesion in eloquent and non-eloquent locations, respectively. Eloquence of lesion location and attributable symptoms were also considered important. Progression of untreated lesions was the most common reason reported for bringing patients back for additional treatment. CONCLUSION: The responses to this survey show that SL-SRS is being used, allowing for small/asymptomatic brain metastases to be left safely unirradiated. It is currently used in patients who have >10-15 lesions with prior WBRT, those with progression of extracranial disease but with acceptable systemic treatment options, and those with poor functional status. The incorporation of this new approach into clinical trials should be considered for the safe study of the efficacy of new CNS-penetrating systemic therapies.

Frailty and postoperative outcomes in brain tumor patients: a systematic review subdivided by tumor etiology.

PURPOSE: Frailty has gained prominence in neurosurgical oncology, with more studies exploring its relationship to postoperative outcomes in brain tumor patients. As this body of literature continues to grow, concisely reviewing recent developments in the field is necessary. Here we provide a systematic review of frailty in brain tumor patients subdivided by tumor type, incorporating both modern frailty indices and traditional Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) metrics. METHODS: Systematic literature review was performed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and Google Scholar were queried for articles related to frailty, KPS, and brain tumor outcomes. Only articles describing novel associations between frailty or KPS and primary intracranial tumors were included. RESULTS: After exclusion criteria, systematic review yielded 52 publications. Amongst malignant lesions, 16 studies focused on glioblastoma. Amongst benign tumors, 13 focused on meningiomas, and 6 focused on vestibular schwannomas. Seventeen studies grouped all brain tumor patients together. Seven studies incorporated both frailty indices and KPS into their analyses. Studies correlated frailty with various postoperative outcomes, including complications and mortality. CONCLUSION: Our review identified several patterns of overall postsurgical outcomes reporting for patients with brain tumors and frailty. To date, reviews of frailty in patients with brain tumors have been largely limited to certain frailty indices, analyzing all patients together regardless of lesion etiology. Although this technique is beneficial in providing a general overview of frailty's use for brain tumor patients, given each tumor pathology has its own unique etiology, this combined approach potentially neglects key nuances governing frailty's use and prognostic value.

Frailty predicts worse outcomes after intracranial meningioma surgery irrespective of existing prognostic factors.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty has been recognized as a predictor of adverse surgical outcomes across multiple surgical disciplines, but until now the relationship between frailty and intracranial meningioma surgery has not been studied. The goal of the present study was to determine the relationship between increasing frailty (determined using the modified Frailty Index [mFI]) and intracranial meningioma resection outcomes (including hospital length of stay [LOS], discharge location, and reoperation and readmission rates). METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent intracranial meningioma resection between August 2012 and May 2018. Seventy-six patients met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Frailty was associated with increased hospital LOS (p = 0.0218), increased reoperation rate (p = 0.029), and discharge to a higher level of care: an inpatient rehabilitation facility or a skilled nursing facility (p = 0.0002). After multivariable analysis, frailty was determined to be an independent risk factor for increased LOS, worse discharge disposition, and subsequent readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is an independent risk factor for worse outcomes following intracranial meningioma resection, including increased LOS, reoperations, and worse discharge disposition. Frailty may help stratify preoperative surgical risk, and thus may provide important clinical information to help neurosurgeons and elderly patients weigh the risks and benefits of resection.