Management strategies for pediatric patients with tectal gliomas: a systematic review.

Pediatric tectal gliomas generally have a benign clinical course with the majority of these observed radiologically. However, patients often need treatment for obstructive hydrocephalus and occasionally require cytotoxic therapy. Given the lack of level I data, there is a need to further characterize management strategies for these rare tumors. We have therefore performed the first systematic review comparing various management strategies. The literature was systematically searched from January 1, 2000, to July 30, 2020, to identify studies reporting treatment strategies for pediatric tectal gliomas. The systematic review included 355 patients from 14 studies. Abnormal ocular findings-including gaze palsies, papilledema, diplopia, and visual field changes-were a common presentation with between 13.6 and 88.9% of patients experiencing such findings. CSF diversion was the most performed procedure, occurring in 317 patients (89.3%). In individual studies, use of CSF diversion ranged from 73.1 to 100.0%. For management options, 232 patients were radiologically monitored (65.4%), 69 received resection (19.4%), 30 received radiotherapy (8.4%), and 19 received chemotherapy (5.4%). When examining frequencies within individual studies, chemotherapy ranged from 2.5 to 29.6% and radiotherapy ranged from 2.5 to 28.6%. Resection was the most variable treatment option between individual studies, ranging from 2.3 to 100.0%. Most tectal gliomas in the pediatric population can be observed through radiographic surveillance and CSF diversion. Other forms of management (i.e., chemotherapy and radiotherapy) are warranted for more aggressive tumors demonstrating radiological progression. Surgical resection should be reserved for large tumors and/or those that are refractory to other treatment modalities.

Robotic vs. minimally invasive mitral valve repair: A 5-year comparison of surgical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive mitral valve repair (MVr) is commonly performed. Data on the outcomes of robotic MVr versus nonrobotic minimally invasive MVr are lacking. We sought to compare the short-term and mid-term outcomes of robotic and nonrobotic MVr. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent robotic MVr (n = 424) or nonrobotic MVr via right mini-thoracotomy (n = 86) at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, from January 2015 to February 2020. Data on baseline and operative characteristics, operative and long-term outcomes were analyzed. Patients were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. RESULTS: Sixty-nine matched pairs were included in the study. The median age was 59 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 54-69) and 75% (n = 103) were male. Baseline characteristics were similar after matching. Robotic and nonrobotic MVr had similar operative characteristics, except that robotic had longer cross-clamp times (57 [48-67] vs. 47 [37-58] min, p < .001) and more P2 resections (83% vs. 68%, p = .05) compared to nonrobotic MVr. There was no difference in operative outcomes between groups. Hospital stay was shorter after robotic MVr (4 [3-4] vs. 4 [4-6] days, p = .003). After a median follow-up of 3.3 years (IQR, 2.1-4.5), there was no mortality in either group, and there was no difference in freedom from mitral valve reoperations between robotic and nonrobotic MVr (5 years: 97.1% vs. 95.7%, p = .63). Follow-up echocardiogram analysis predicted excellent freedom from recurrent moderate-or-severe mitral regurgitation at 3 years after robotic and nonrobotic MVr (90% vs. 92%, p = .18, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both short-term and mid-term outcomes of robotic and nonrobotic minimally invasive mitral repair surgery are comparable.

Outcomes and Principles of Patient Selection for Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy for Metastatic Brain Tumor Management: A Multisite Institutional Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is an emerging treatment modality for both primary brain tumors and metastases. We report initial outcomes after LITT for metastatic brain tumors across 3 sites at our institution and discuss potential strategies for optimal patient selection and outcomes. METHODS: International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision codes were used to identify patients with malignant brain tumors treated via LITT across all 3 Mayo Clinic sites with at least 6 months follow-up. Local control was based on radiologic and clinical evidence. Overall survival was measured from time of receiving LITT until death or end of the study period. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were treated for progression of a single (n = 21) or multiple (n = 2) previously radiated metastatic lesions and/or radiation necrosis. Median age was 56 years (interquartile range, 47-66.5 years). LITT achieved local control of the lesion in most patients with metastatic tumors or radiation necrosis (n = 18; 81.8%) for the duration of follow-up. One patient did not have local control data available. Thirteen (56.5%) patients remained alive at the end of the study period. No other patients died of their treated disease during the study period; 5 of 10 deaths were attributable to central nervous system progression outside the treated lesion. Although median survival for this cohort has not yet been reached, the current median survival is 16 months (interquartile range, 12-48.5 months) after LITT for metastatic/radiation necrosis lesions. CONCLUSIONS: LITT was associated with sustained local control in 81.8% of patients treated for radiographic progression of metastatic central nervous system disease.