Search

OBJECTIVE The supplemented Spetzler-Martin (Supp-SM) grading system was developed to improve the predictive accuracy of surgical risk for patients with brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). The aim of this study was to apply the Supp-SM grading system to patients having stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for Spetzler-Martin (SM) intermediate- (grade III) or high-grade (grade IV–V) AVMs to enable comparison with published microsurgical series. METHODS In 219 patients who underwent SRS during the period from 1990 to 2016, the Supp-SM grade was calculated for SM grade III (n = 154) or SM grade IV–V (n = 65) AVMs. The Supp-SM grades in these patients were 4 (n = 14, 6%), 5 (n = 36, 16%), 6 (n = 67, 31%), 7 (n = 76, 35%), and 8–9 (n = 26, 12%). Sixty patients (27%) had deep AVMs (basal ganglia, thalamus, or brainstem). Thirty-nine patients (18%) had volume-staged SRS; 41 patients (19%) underwent repeat SRS. The median follow-up period was 69 months for SM grade III AVMs and 113 months for SM grade IV–V AVMs. RESULTS AVM obliteration was confirmed in 163 patients (74%) at a median of 38 months after initial SRS. The obliteration rates at 4 and 8 years were 59% and 76%, respectively. Thirty-one patients (14%) had post-SRS deficits from hemorrhage (n = 7, 3%) or radiation injury (n = 24, 11%). Six patients (3%) died after SRS (hemorrhage, n = 5; radiation injury, n = 1). The rates of neurological decline or death at 4 and 8 years were 11% and 18%, respectively. Factors predictive of nonobliteration were deep location (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39–0.82, p = 0.003) and increasing AVM volume (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93–0.99, p = 0.002). Increasing AVM volume was the only factor associated with neurological decline (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02–1.08, p = 0.002). The Supp-SM grading score did not correlate with either obliteration (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82–1.09, p = 0.43) or neurological decline (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84–1.56, p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS The Supp-SM grading system was not predictive of outcomes after SRS of intermediate- or high-grade AVM. In a cohort that included a high percentage (47%) of "inoperable" AVMs according to Supp-SM grade (≥ 7), most patients had obliteration after SRS, although there was a high risk of neurological decline.

OBJECTIVE The profound immunosuppression found in glioblastoma (GBM) patients is a critical barrier to effective immunotherapy. Multiple mechanisms of tumor-mediated immune suppression exist, and the induction of immunosuppressive monocytes such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) is increasingly appreciated as a key part of this pathology. GBM-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) can induce the formation of MDSCs. The authors sought to identify the molecular consequences of these interactions in myeloid cells in order to identify potential targets that could pharmacologically disrupt GBM EV–monocyte interaction as a means to ameliorate tumor-mediated immune suppression. Heparin-sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs) are a general mechanism by which EVs come into association with their target cells, and soluble heparin has been shown to interfere with EV-HSPG interactions. The authors sought to assess the efficacy of heparin treatment for mitigating the effects of GBM EVs on the formation of MDSCs. METHODS GBM EVs were collected from patient-derived cell line cultures via staged ultracentrifugation and cocultured with monocytes collected from apheresis cones from healthy blood donors. RNA was isolated from EV-conditioned and unconditioned monocytes after 72 hours of coculture, and RNA-sequencing analysis performed. For the heparin treatment studies, soluble heparin was added at the time of EV-monocyte coculture and flow cytometry analysis was performed 72 hours later. After the initial EV-monocyte coculture period, donor-matched T-cell coculture studies were performed by adding fluorescently labeled and stimulated T cells for 5 days of coculture. RESULTS Transcriptomic analysis of GBM EV–treated monocytes demonstrated downregulation of several important immunological and metabolic pathways, with upregulation of the pathways associated with synthesis of cholesterol and HSPG. Heparin treatment inhibited association between GBM EVs and monocytes in a dose-dependent fashion, which resulted in a concomitant reduction in MDSC formation (p < 0.01). The authors further demonstrated that reduced MDSC formation resulted in a partial rescue of immune suppression, as measured by effects on activated donor-matched T cells (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The authors demonstrated that GBM EVs induce broad but reproducible reprogramming in monocytes, with enrichment of pathways that may portend an immunosuppressive phenotype. The authors further demonstrated that GBM EV–monocyte interactions are potentially druggable targets for overcoming tumor-mediated immune suppression, with heparin inhibition of EV-monocyte interactions demonstrating proof of principle.

OBJECTIVEAlthough ventricular shunting is an effective therapy for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH), the effect of shunt valve type on the incidence of revision surgery is not well defined. To address this issue, shunt revision rates between patients with iNPH receiving a fixed-setting valve (FSV) versus a programmable valve (PV) were compared.METHODSPatients with iNPH treated with ventricular shunting between 2001 and 2017 were included for analysis. The incidence of shunt revision was noted and risk factors for revision were identified using a Cox proportional hazards model. Costs associated with admission for ventricular shunt procedures were obtained from the Vizient national database.RESULTSThere were 348 patients included for analysis, with 98 patients (28.1%) receiving a PV. Shunt revision occurred in 73 patients (21.0%), with 12 patients (3.4%) undergoing multiple revisions. Overall revision rates were lower in patients receiving a PV (13.3% vs 24.0%; p = 0.027), as was the incidence of multiple revisions (0.0% vs 4.8%; p = 0.023). Patients with initial placement of an FSV were also more likely to undergo valve exchange during follow-up (12.4% vs 2.0%; p = 0.003). Patients with a PV were less likely to undergo revision due to persistent symptoms without obstruction (2.0% vs 8.8%; p = 0.031) and distal obstruction (1.0% vs 6.8%; p = 0.030). In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, initial placement of a PV was associated with reduced risk of revision due to persistent symptoms without obstruction (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04–0.93; p = 0.036). PVs were associated with more frequent shunt series (1.3 vs 0.6; p < 0.001) and head CT scans (3.6 vs 2.7; p = 0.038) during follow-up. There was no significant difference in mean total costs between patients receiving an FSV and a PV ($24,282.50 vs $24,396.90; p = 0.937).CONCLUSIONSThe authors’ results suggest that PVs lead to reduced rates of shunt revision in patients with iNPH, and decreased risk of revision due to persistent symptoms of iNPH, thereby justifying the higher upfront cost of PVs despite similar overall treatment costs between these devices.

Object Observational studies, such as cohort and case-control studies, are valuable instruments in evidence-based medicine. Case-control studies, in particular, are becoming increasingly popular in the neurosurgical literature due to their low cost and relative ease of execution; however, no one has yet systematically assessed these types of studies for quality in methodology and reporting. Methods The authors performed a literature search using PubMed/MEDLINE to identify all studies that explicitly identified themselves as “case-control” and were published in the JNS Publishing Group journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Neurosurgical Focus) or Neurosurgery. Each paper was evaluated for 22 descriptive variables and then categorized as having either met or missed the basic definition of a case-control study. All studies that evaluated risk factors for a well-defined outcome were considered true case-control studies. The authors sought to identify key features or phrases that were or were not predictive of a true case-control study. Those papers that satisfied the definition were further evaluated using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. Results The search detected 67 papers that met the inclusion criteria, of which 32 (48%) represented true case-control studies. The frequency of true case-control studies has not changed with time. Use of odds ratios (ORs) and logistic regression (LR) analysis were strong positive predictors of true case-control studies (for odds ratios, OR 15.33 and 95% CI 4.52–51.97; for logistic regression analysis, OR 8.77 and 95% CI 2.69–28.56). Conversely, negative predictors included focus on a procedure/intervention (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13–0.998) and use of the word “outcome” in the Results section (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.082–0.65). After exclusion of nested case-control studies, the negative correlation between focus on a procedure/intervention and true case-control studies was strengthened (OR 0.053, 95% CI 0.0064–0.44). There was a trend toward a negative association between the use of survival analysis or Kaplan-Meier curves and true case-control studies (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.015–1.12). True case-control studies were no more likely than their counterparts to use a potential study design “expert” (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.57–3.95). The overall average STROBE score was 72% (range 50–86%). Examples of reporting deficiencies were reporting of bias (28%), missing data (55%), and funding (44%). Conclusions The results of this analysis show that the majority of studies in the neurosurgical literature that identify themselves as “case-control” studies are, in fact, labeled incorrectly. Positive and negative predictors were identified. The authors provide several recommendations that may reverse the incorrect and inappropriate use of the term “case-control” and improve the quality of design and reporting of true case-control studies in neurosurgery.

Observational studies, such as cohort and case-control studies, are valuable instruments in evidence-based medicine. Case-control studies, in particular, are becoming increasingly popular in the neurosurgical literature due to their low cost and relative ease of execution; however, no one has yet systematically assessed these types of studies for quality in methodology and reporting.The authors performed a literature search using PubMed/MEDLINE to identify all studies that explicitly identified themselves as "case-control" and were published in the JNS Publishing Group journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Neurosurgical Focus) or Neurosurgery. Each paper was evaluated for 22 descriptive variables and then categorized as having either met or missed the basic definition of a case-control study. All studies that evaluated risk factors for a well-defined outcome were considered true case-control studies. The authors sought to identify key features or phrases that were or were not predictive of a true case-control study. Those papers that satisfied the definition were further evaluated using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist.The search detected 67 papers that met the inclusion criteria, of which 32 (48%) represented true case-control studies. The frequency of true case-control studies has not changed with time. Use of odds ratios (ORs) and logistic regression (LR) analysis were strong positive predictors of true case-control studies (for odds ratios, OR 15.33 and 95% CI 4.52-51.97; for logistic regression analysis, OR 8.77 and 95% CI 2.69-28.56). Conversely, negative predictors included focus on a procedure/intervention (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.998) and use of the word "outcome" in the Results section (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.082-0.65). After exclusion of nested case-control studies, the negative correlation between focus on a procedure/intervention and true case-control studies was strengthened (OR 0.053, 95% CI 0.0064-0.44). There was a trend toward a negative association between the use of survival analysis or Kaplan-Meier curves and true case-control studies (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.015-1.12). True case-control studies were no more likely than their counterparts to use a potential study design "expert" (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.57-3.95). The overall average STROBE score was 72% (range 50-86%). Examples of reporting deficiencies were reporting of bias (28%), missing data (55%), and funding (44%).The results of this analysis show that the majority of studies in the neurosurgical literature that identify themselves as "case-control" studies are, in fact, labeled incorrectly. Positive and negative predictors were identified. The authors provide several recommendations that may reverse the incorrect and inappropriate use of the term "case-control" and improve the quality of design and reporting of true case-control studies in neurosurgery.