Search

Purpose: Upfront dual checkpoint blockade with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated efficacy for treating melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in asymptomatic patients. Whether the combination of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with dual checkpoint blockade improves outcomes over dual-checkpoint blockade alone is unknown. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with MBM receiving ICI with nivolumab and ipilimumab, with and without SRS., Methods: 49 patients with 158 MBM receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab for untreated MBM between 2015 and 2022 were identified at our institution. Patient and tumor characteristics including age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), presence of symptoms, cancer history, MBM burden, and therapy course were recorded. Outcomes measured from initiation of MBM-directed therapy included overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC). Time-to-event analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: 25 patients with 74 MBM received ICI alone, and 24 patients with 84 MBM received concurrent SRS. Median follow-up was 24 months. No differences in age (p = 0.96), KPS (p = 0.85), presence of symptoms (p = 0.79), prior MBM (p = 0.68), prior MBM-directed surgery (p = 0.96) or SRS (p = 0.68), MBM size (p = 0.67), or MBM number (p = 0.94) were seen. There was a higher rate of nivolumab and ipilimumab course completion in the SRS group (54% vs. 24%; p = 0.029). The SRS group received prior immunotherapy more often than the ICI alone group (54% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 1-year OS (72% vs. 71%, p = 0.20) and DIC (63% v 51%, p = 0.26) between groups. The SRS group had higher 1-year LC (92% vs. 64%; p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, LC was improved with combination therapy (AHR 0.38, p = 0.01)., Conclusion: In our analysis, patients who received SRS with nivolumab and ipilimumab had superior LC without increased risk of toxicity or compromised immunotherapy treatment completion despite the SRS cohort having higher rates of prior immunotherapy. Further prospective study of combination nivolumab and ipilimumab with SRS is warranted., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: There is a growing body of literature documenting glioma heterogeneity in terms of radiographic, histologic, molecular, and genetic characteristics. Incomplete spatial specification of intraoperative tumor samples may contribute to variability in the results of pathological and biological investigations. We have developed a system, termed geo-tagging, for routine intraoperative linkage of each tumor sample to its location via neuronavigation., Methods: This is a single-institution, IRB approved, prospective database of undergoing clinically indicated surgery. We evaluated relevant factors affecting data collection by this registry, including tumor and surgical factors (e.g. tumor volume, location, grade and surgeon)., Results: Over a 2-year period, 487 patients underwent craniotomy for an intra-axial tumor. Of those, 214 underwent surgery for a newly diagnosed or recurrent glioma. There was significant variation in the average number of samples collected per registered case, with a range of samples from 2.53 to 4.75 per tumor type. Histology and grade impacted on sampling with a range of 2.0 samples per tumor in Grade four, IDH-WT gliomas to 4.5 samples in grade four, IDH-mutant gliomas. The range of cases with sampling per surgeon was 6 to 99 with a mean of 47.6 cases and there was a statistically significant differences between surgeons. Tumor grade did not have a statistically significant impact on number of samples per case. No significant correlation was found between the number of samples collected and enhancing tumor volume, EOR, or volume of tumor resected., Conclusion: We are using the results of this analysis to develop a prospective sample collection protocol., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Unique challenges exist in the utilization of telemedicine for neurological and surgical specialties. We examined the differences in patient satisfaction for telemedicine versus in-person visits within a Neuro-Oncology Program to assess whether there was a difference between surgical and medical specialties. We also examined the potential cost savings benefits of utilizing telemedicine., Methods: 1189 Press Ganey surveys in the Department of Neuro-Oncology (982 in-person and 207 telemedicine) by surgical and medical neuro-oncology patients between 04/01/2020 and 06/30/2021 were reviewed. Survey results were divided into 4 categories (Access, Provider, Technology (telemedicine only), and Overall Satisfaction). Results were analyzed for the impact of telemedicine versus in-person visits, and gender, age, insurance, and specialty. Cost savings were calculated based on potential travel distance and lost productivity., Results: Survey results from telemedicine visits demonstrated that patients with private insurance returned higher scores in the Provider (p = 0.0089), Technology (p = 0.00187), and Overall (p = 0.00382) categories. Surgical patients returned higher scores for Access (p = 0.0015), Technology (p = 0.0002), and Overall (p = 0.0019). When comparing telemedicine to in-person scores, in-person scored higher in Provider (p = 0.0092) for all patients, while in-person scored higher in Access (p = 0.0252) amongst surgical patients. Cost analysis revealed that telemedicine allowed patients to save an average of 4.1 to 5.6 h per visit time and a potential cost savings of up to $223.3 ± 171.4., Conclusion: Telemedicine yields equivalent patient satisfaction when employed in surgical as compared to medical Neuro-Oncology patients with the potential to lessen the financial and time burden on neuro-oncology patients., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)