Effect of awake craniotomy in glioblastoma in eloquent areas (GLIOMAP): a propensity score-matched analysis of an international, multicentre, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Awake mapping has been associated with decreased neurological deficits and increased extent of resection in eloquent glioma resections. However, its effect within clinically relevant glioblastoma subgroups remains poorly understood. We aimed to assess the benefit of this technique in subgroups of patients with glioblastomas based on age, preoperative neurological morbidity, and Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS). METHODS: In this propensity score-matched analysis of an international, multicentre, cohort study (GLIOMAP), patients were recruited at four tertiary centres in Europe (Erasmus MC, Rotterdam and Haaglanden MC, The Hague, Netherlands, and UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and the USA (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA). Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-90 years, undergoing resection, had a histopathological diagnosis of primary glioblastoma, their tumour was in an eloquent or near-eloquent location, and they had a unifocal enhancing lesion. Patients either underwent awake mapping during craniotomy, or asleep resection, as per treating physician or multidisciplinary tumour board decision. We used propensity-score matching (1:3) to match patients in the awake group with those in the asleep group to create a matched cohort, and to match patients from subgroups stratified by age (<70 years vs ≥70 years), preoperative National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (score of 0-1 vs ≥2), and preoperative KPS (90-100 vs ≤80). We used Cox proportional hazard regressions to analyse the effect of awake mapping on the primary outcomes including postoperative neurological deficits (measured by deterioration in NIHSS score at 6 week, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively), overall survival, and progression-free survival. We used logistic regression to analyse the predictive value of awake mapping and other perioperative factors on postoperative outcomes. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2010, and Oct 31, 2020, 3919 patients were recruited, of whom 1047 with tumour resection for primary eloquent glioblastoma were included in analyses as the overall unmatched cohort. After propensity-score matching, the overall matched cohort comprised 536 patients, of whom 134 had awake craniotomies and 402 had asleep resection. In the overall matched cohort, awake craniotomy versus asleep resection resulted in fewer neurological deficits at 3 months (26 [22%] of 120 vs 107 [33%] of 323; p=0·019) and 6 months (30 [26%] of 115 vs 125 [41%] of 305; p=0·0048) postoperatively, longer overall survival (median 17·0 months [95% CI 15·0-24·0] vs 14·0 months [13·0-16·0]; p=0·00054), and longer progression-free survival (median 9·0 months [8·0-11·0] vs 7·3 months [6·0-8·8]; p=0·0060). In subgroup analyses, fewer postoperative neurological deficits occurred at 3 months and at 6 months with awake craniotomy versus asleep resection in patients younger than 70 years (3 months: 22 [21%] of 103 vs 93 [34%] of 272; p=0·016; 6 months: 24 [24%] of 101 vs 108 [42%] of 258; p=0·0014), those with an NIHSS score of 0-1 (3 months: 22 [23%] of 96 vs 97 [38%] of 254; p=0·0071; 6 months: 27 [28%] of 95 vs 115 [48%] of 239; p=0·0010), and those with a KPS of 90-100 (3 months: 17 [19%] of 88 vs 74 [35%] of 237; p=0·034; 6 months: 24 [28%] of 87 vs 101 [45%] of 223, p=0·0043). Additionally, fewer postoperative neurological deficits were seen in the awake group versus the asleep group at 3 months in patients aged 70 years and older (two [13%] of 16 vs 15 [43%] of 35; p=0·033; no difference seen at 6 months), with a NIHSS score of 2 or higher (3 months: three [13%] of 23 vs 21 [36%] of 58; p=0·040) and at 6 months in those with a KPS of 80 or lower (five [18%] of 28 vs 34 [39%] of 88; p=0·043; no difference seen at 3 months). Median overall survival was longer for the awake group than the asleep group in the subgroups younger than 70 years (19·5 months [95% CI 16·0-31·0] vs 15·0 months [13·0-17·0]; p<0·0001), an NIHSS score of 0-1 (18·0 months [16·0-31·0] vs 14·0 months [13·0-16·5]; p=0·00047), and KPS of 90-100 (19·0 months [16·0-31·0] vs 14·5 months [13·0-16·5]; p=0·00058). Median progression-free survival was also longer in the awake group than in the asleep group in patients younger than 70 years (9·3 months [95% CI 8·0-12·0] vs 7·5 months [6·5-9·0]; p=0·0061), in those with an NIHSS score of 0-1 (9·5 months [9·0-12·0] vs 8·0 months [6·5-9·0]; p=0·0035), and in those with a KPS of 90-100 (10·0 months [9·0-13·0] vs 8·0 months [7·0-9·0]; p=0·0010). No difference was seen in overall survival or progression-free survival between the awake group and the asleep group for those aged 70 years and older, with NIHSS scores of 2 or higher, or with a KPS of 80 or lower. INTERPRETATION: These data might aid neurosurgeons with the assessment of their surgical strategy in individual glioblastoma patients. These findings will be validated and further explored in the SAFE trial (NCT03861299) and the PROGRAM study (NCT04708171). FUNDING: None.

Decision making and surgical modality selection in glioblastoma patients: an international multicenter survey.

PURPOSE: Due to the lack of consensus on the management of glioblastoma patients, there exists variability amongst surgeons and centers regarding treatment decisions. Though, objective data about the extent of this heterogeneity is still lacking. We aim to evaluate and analyze the similarities and differences in neurosurgical practice patterns. METHODS: The survey was distributed to members of the neurosurgical societies of the Netherlands (NVVN), Europe (EANS), the United Kingdom (SBNS) and the United States (CNS) between January and March 2021 with questions about the selection of surgical modality and decision making in glioblastoma patients. RESULTS: Survey respondents (224 neurosurgeons) were from 41 countries. Overall, the most notable differences observed were the presence and timing of a multidisciplinary tumor board; the importance and role of various perioperative factors in the decision-making process, and the preferred treatment in various glioblastoma cases and case variants. Tumor boards were more common at academic centers. The intended extent of resection for glioblastoma resections in eloquent areas was limited more often in European neurosurgeons. We found a strong relationship between the surgeon's theoretical survey answers and their actual approach in presented patient cases. In general, the factors which were found to be theoretically the most important in surgical decision making were confirmed to influence the respondents' decisions to the greatest extent in practice as well. DISCUSSION: This survey illustrates the theoretical and practical heterogeneity among surgeons and centers in their decision making and treatment selection for glioblastoma patients. These data invite further evaluations to identify key variables that can be optimized and may therefore benefit from consensus.

Exercise improves quality of life in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Exercise may be associated with increased health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer, but it is not prescribed as standard care during or after cancer treatment. We systematically reviewed the methodological quality of, and summarised the evidence from, randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis was performed to examine the effectiveness of exercise in improving the QoL in patients with cancer, during and after medical treatment. METHODS: RCTs that met the PICO (Patient Intervention Control Outcome) format were included in this study. 16 RCTs were identified through a search of Embase, Medline (OvidSP) and the Cochrane Library. These trials were reviewed for substantive results and the methodological quality was assessed using the Delphi criteria list. RESULTS: Exercise interventions differed widely in content, frequency, duration and intensity. Based on the meta-analysis, exercise improved QoL significantly in patients with cancer as compared to usual care (mean difference 5.55, 95% CI (3.19 to 7.90), p<0.001). Other outcomes closely related to QoL, such as fatigue and physical functioning, also improved. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise has a direct positive impact on QoL in patients with cancer, during and following medical intervention. Exercise is a clinically relevant treatment and should be an adjunct to disease therapy in oncology.

Impact of maximal extent of resection on postoperative deficits, patient functioning, and survival within clinically important glioblastoma subgroups.

BACKGROUND: The impact of extent of resection (EOR), residual tumor volume (RTV), and gross-total resection (GTR) in glioblastoma subgroups is currently unknown. This study aimed to analyze their impact on patient subgroups in relation to neurological and functional outcomes. METHODS: Patients with tumor resection for eloquent glioblastoma between 2010 and 2020 at 4 tertiary centers were recruited from a cohort of 3919 patients. RESULTS: One thousand and forty-seven (1047) patients were included. Higher EOR and lower RTV were significantly associated with improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) across all subgroups, but RTV was a stronger prognostic factor. GTR based on RTV improved median OS in the overall cohort (19.0 months, P < .0001), and in the subgroups with IDH wildtype tumors (18.5 months, P = .00055), MGMT methylated tumors (35.0 months, P < .0001), aged <70 (20.0 months, P < .0001), NIHSS 0-1 (19.0 months, P = .0038), KPS 90-100 (19.5 months, P = .0012), and KPS ≤80 (17.0 months, P = .036). GTR was significantly associated with improved OS in the overall cohort (HR 0.58, P = .0070) and improved PFS in the NIHSS 0-1 subgroup (HR 0.47, P = .012). GTR combined with preservation of neurological function (OFO 1 grade) yielded the longest survival times (median OS 22.0 months, P < .0001), which was significantly more frequently achieved in the awake mapping group (50.0%) than in the asleep group (21.8%) (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Maximum resection was especially beneficial in the subgroups aged <70, NIHSS 0-1, and KPS 90-100 without increasing the risk of postoperative NIHSS or KPS worsening. These findings may assist surgical decision making in individual glioblastoma patients.

Global comparison of awake and asleep mapping procedures in glioma surgery: An international multicenter survey.

Background: Mapping techniques are frequently used to preserve neurological function during glioma surgery. There is, however, no consensus regarding the use of many variables of these techniques. Currently, there are almost no objective data available about potential heterogeneity between surgeons and centers. The goal of this survey is therefore to globally identify, evaluate and analyze the local mapping procedures in glioma surgery. Methods: The survey was distributed to members of the neurosurgical societies of the Netherlands (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Neurochirurgie-NVVN), Europe (European Association of Neurosurgical Societies-EANS), and the United States (Congress of Neurological Surgeons-CNS) between December 2020 and January 2021 with questions about awake mapping, asleep mapping, assessment of neurological morbidity, and decision making. Results: Survey responses were obtained from 212 neurosurgeons from 42 countries. Overall, significant differences were observed for equipment and its settings that are used for both awake and asleep mapping, intraoperative assessment of eloquent areas, the use of surgical adjuncts and monitoring, anesthesia management, assessment of neurological morbidity, and perioperative decision making. Academic practices performed awake and asleep mapping procedures more often and employed a clinical neurophysiologist with telemetric monitoring more frequently. European neurosurgeons differed from US neurosurgeons regarding the modality for cortical/subcortical mapping and awake/asleep mapping, the use of surgical adjuncts, and anesthesia management during awake mapping. Discussion: This survey demonstrates the heterogeneity among surgeons and centers with respect to their procedures for awake mapping, asleep mapping, assessing neurological morbidity, and decision making in glioma patients. These data invite further evaluations for key variables that can be optimized and may therefore benefit from consensus.

The SAFE-trial: Safe surgery for glioblastoma multiforme: Awake craniotomy versus surgery under general anesthesia. Study protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery of GBM nowadays is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA) and resections are often not as aggressive as possible, due to the chance of seriously damaging the patient with a rather low life expectancy. A surgical technique optimizing resection of the tumor in eloquent areas but preventing neurological deficits is necessary to improve survival and quality of life in these patients. Awake craniotomy (AC) with the use of cortical and subcortical stimulation has been widely implemented for low-grade glioma resections (LGG), but not yet for GBM. AC has shown to increase resection percentage and preserve quality of life in LGG and could thus be of important value in GBM surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT). Consecutive patients with a glioblastoma in or near eloquent areas (Sawaya grading II/III) will be 1:1 randomized to awake craniotomy or craniotomy under general anesthesia. 246 patients will be included in neurosurgical centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. Primary end-points are: 1) Postoperative neurological morbidity and 2) Proportion of patients with gross-total resections. Secondary end-points are: 1) Health-related quality of life; 2) Progression-free survival (PFS); 3) Overall survival (OS) and 4) Frequency and severity of Serious Adverse Effects in each group. Also, a cost-benefit analysis will be performed. All patients will receive standard adjuvant treatment with concomitant chemoradiotherapy. DISCUSSION: This RCT should demonstrate whether AC is superior to craniotomy under GA on neurological morbidity, extent of resection and survival for glioblastoma resections in or near eloquent areas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03861299 Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7589.