Cargando…

Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging versus standard neuronavigation for the neurosurgical treatment of glioblastoma: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Although the added value of increasing extent of glioblastoma resection is still debated, multiple technologies can assist neurosurgeons in attempting to achieve this goal. Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) might be helpful in this context, but to date only one randomized...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kubben, Pieter L., Scholtes, Felix, Schijns, Olaf E.M.G., ter Laak-Poort, Mariël P., Teernstra, Onno P.M., Kessels, Alfons G. H., van Overbeeke, Jacobus J., Martin, Didier H., van Santbrink, Henk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24991473
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.132572
_version_ 1782323735388225536
author Kubben, Pieter L.
Scholtes, Felix
Schijns, Olaf E.M.G.
ter Laak-Poort, Mariël P.
Teernstra, Onno P.M.
Kessels, Alfons G. H.
van Overbeeke, Jacobus J.
Martin, Didier H.
van Santbrink, Henk
author_facet Kubben, Pieter L.
Scholtes, Felix
Schijns, Olaf E.M.G.
ter Laak-Poort, Mariël P.
Teernstra, Onno P.M.
Kessels, Alfons G. H.
van Overbeeke, Jacobus J.
Martin, Didier H.
van Santbrink, Henk
author_sort Kubben, Pieter L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although the added value of increasing extent of glioblastoma resection is still debated, multiple technologies can assist neurosurgeons in attempting to achieve this goal. Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) might be helpful in this context, but to date only one randomized trial exists. METHODS: We included 14 adults with a supratentorial tumor suspect for glioblastoma and an indication for gross total resection in this randomized controlled trial of which the interim analysis is presented here. Participants were assigned to either ultra-low-field strength iMRI-guided surgery (0.15 Tesla) or to conventional neuronavigation-guided surgery (cNN). Primary endpoint was residual tumor volume (RTV) percentage. Secondary endpoints were clinical performance, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and survival. RESULTS: Median RTV in the cNN group is 6.5% with an interquartile range of 2.5-14.75%. Median RTV in the iMRI group is 13% with an interquartile range of 3.75-27.75%. A Mann-Whitney test showed no statistically significant difference between these groups (P =0.28). Median survival in the cNN group is 472 days, with an interquartile range of 244-619 days. Median survival in the iMRI group is 396 days, with an interquartile range of 191-599 days (P =0.81). Clinical performance did not differ either. For HRQOL only descriptive statistics were applied due to a limited sample size. CONCLUSION: This interim analysis of a randomized trial on iMRI-guided glioblastoma resection compared with cNN-guided glioblastoma resection does not show an advantage with respect to extent of resection, clinical performance, and survival for the iMRI group. Ultra-low-field strength iMRI does not seem to be cost-effective compared with cNN, although the lack of a valid endpoint for neurosurgical studies evaluating extent of glioblastoma resection is a limitation of our study and previous volumetry-based studies on this topic.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4078446
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40784462014-07-02 Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging versus standard neuronavigation for the neurosurgical treatment of glioblastoma: A randomized controlled trial Kubben, Pieter L. Scholtes, Felix Schijns, Olaf E.M.G. ter Laak-Poort, Mariël P. Teernstra, Onno P.M. Kessels, Alfons G. H. van Overbeeke, Jacobus J. Martin, Didier H. van Santbrink, Henk Surg Neurol Int Original Article BACKGROUND: Although the added value of increasing extent of glioblastoma resection is still debated, multiple technologies can assist neurosurgeons in attempting to achieve this goal. Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) might be helpful in this context, but to date only one randomized trial exists. METHODS: We included 14 adults with a supratentorial tumor suspect for glioblastoma and an indication for gross total resection in this randomized controlled trial of which the interim analysis is presented here. Participants were assigned to either ultra-low-field strength iMRI-guided surgery (0.15 Tesla) or to conventional neuronavigation-guided surgery (cNN). Primary endpoint was residual tumor volume (RTV) percentage. Secondary endpoints were clinical performance, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and survival. RESULTS: Median RTV in the cNN group is 6.5% with an interquartile range of 2.5-14.75%. Median RTV in the iMRI group is 13% with an interquartile range of 3.75-27.75%. A Mann-Whitney test showed no statistically significant difference between these groups (P =0.28). Median survival in the cNN group is 472 days, with an interquartile range of 244-619 days. Median survival in the iMRI group is 396 days, with an interquartile range of 191-599 days (P =0.81). Clinical performance did not differ either. For HRQOL only descriptive statistics were applied due to a limited sample size. CONCLUSION: This interim analysis of a randomized trial on iMRI-guided glioblastoma resection compared with cNN-guided glioblastoma resection does not show an advantage with respect to extent of resection, clinical performance, and survival for the iMRI group. Ultra-low-field strength iMRI does not seem to be cost-effective compared with cNN, although the lack of a valid endpoint for neurosurgical studies evaluating extent of glioblastoma resection is a limitation of our study and previous volumetry-based studies on this topic. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4078446/ /pubmed/24991473 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.132572 Text en Copyright: © 2014 Kubben LP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kubben, Pieter L.
Scholtes, Felix
Schijns, Olaf E.M.G.
ter Laak-Poort, Mariël P.
Teernstra, Onno P.M.
Kessels, Alfons G. H.
van Overbeeke, Jacobus J.
Martin, Didier H.
van Santbrink, Henk
Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging versus standard neuronavigation for the neurosurgical treatment of glioblastoma: A randomized controlled trial
title Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging versus standard neuronavigation for the neurosurgical treatment of glioblastoma: A randomized controlled trial
title_full Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging versus standard neuronavigation for the neurosurgical treatment of glioblastoma: A randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging versus standard neuronavigation for the neurosurgical treatment of glioblastoma: A randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging versus standard neuronavigation for the neurosurgical treatment of glioblastoma: A randomized controlled trial
title_short Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging versus standard neuronavigation for the neurosurgical treatment of glioblastoma: A randomized controlled trial
title_sort intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging versus standard neuronavigation for the neurosurgical treatment of glioblastoma: a randomized controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24991473
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.132572
work_keys_str_mv AT kubbenpieterl intraoperativemagneticresonanceimagingversusstandardneuronavigationfortheneurosurgicaltreatmentofglioblastomaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT scholtesfelix intraoperativemagneticresonanceimagingversusstandardneuronavigationfortheneurosurgicaltreatmentofglioblastomaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT schijnsolafemg intraoperativemagneticresonanceimagingversusstandardneuronavigationfortheneurosurgicaltreatmentofglioblastomaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT terlaakpoortmarielp intraoperativemagneticresonanceimagingversusstandardneuronavigationfortheneurosurgicaltreatmentofglioblastomaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT teernstraonnopm intraoperativemagneticresonanceimagingversusstandardneuronavigationfortheneurosurgicaltreatmentofglioblastomaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kesselsalfonsgh intraoperativemagneticresonanceimagingversusstandardneuronavigationfortheneurosurgicaltreatmentofglioblastomaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vanoverbeekejacobusj intraoperativemagneticresonanceimagingversusstandardneuronavigationfortheneurosurgicaltreatmentofglioblastomaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT martindidierh intraoperativemagneticresonanceimagingversusstandardneuronavigationfortheneurosurgicaltreatmentofglioblastomaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vansantbrinkhenk intraoperativemagneticresonanceimagingversusstandardneuronavigationfortheneurosurgicaltreatmentofglioblastomaarandomizedcontrolledtrial