Search

Objective: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has recently emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to resection for treating multiple brain metastases. Given the lack of consensus regarding the application of SRS versus resection for multiple brain metastases, the authors aimed to conduct a systematic literature review of all published work on the topic., Methods: The PubMed, OVID, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were used to identify studies that examined clinical outcomes after resection or SRS was performed in patients with multiple brain metastases. Radiological studies, case series with fewer than 3 patients, pediatric studies, or national database studies were excluded. Data extracted included patient demographics and mean overall survival (OS). Weighted t-tests and ANOVA were performed., Results: A total of 1300 abstracts were screened, 450 articles underwent full-text review, and 129 studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 20,177 patients (18,852 treated with SRS and 1325 who underwent resection). The OS for the SRS group was 10.2 ± 6 months, and for the resection group it was 6.5 ± 3.8 months. A weighted ANOVA test comparing OS with covariates of age, sex, and publication year revealed that the treatment group (p = 0.045), age (p = 0.034), and publication year (0.0078) were all independently associated with OS (with SRS, younger age, and later publication year being associated with longer survival), whereas sex (p = 0.95) was not., Conclusions: For patients with multiple brain metastases, SRS and resection are effective treatments to prolong OS, with published data suggesting that SRS may have a trend toward lengthened survival outcomes. The authors encourage additional work examining outcomes of treatments for multiple brain metastases.

OBJECTIVE Spine surgeons in the United States continue to be overwhelmed by an aging population, and patients are waiting weeks to months for appointments. With a finite number of clinic visits per surgeon, analysis of referral sources needs to be explored. In this study, the authors evaluated patient referrals and their yield for surgical volume at a tertiary care center. METHODS This is a retrospective study of new patient visits by the spine surgery group at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Spine Health from 2011 to 2016. Data on all new or consultation visits for 5 identified spinal surgeons at the Center for Spine Health were collected. Patients with an identifiable referral source and who were at least 18 years of age at initial visit were included in this study. Univariate analysis was used to identify demographic differences among referral groups, and then multivariate analysis was used to evaluate those referral groups as significant predictors of surgical yield. RESULTS After adjusting for demographic differences across all referrals, multivariate analysis identified physician referrals as more likely (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.10, p = 0.0293) to yield a surgical case than self-referrals. General practitioner referrals (OR 0.5616, 95% CI 0.3809-0.8278, p = 0.0036) were identified as less likely to yield surgical cases than referrals from interventionalists (OR 1.5296, p = 0.058) or neurologists (OR 1.7498, 95% CI 1.0057-3.0446, p = 0.0477). Additionally, 2 demographic factors, including distance from home and age, were identified as predictors of surgery. Local patients (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.29, p = 0.018) and those 65 years of age or older (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.87, p = 0.0023) were both more likely to need surgery after establishing care with a spine surgeon. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, referrals from general practitioners and self-referrals are important areas where focused triaging may be necessary. Further research into midlevel providers and nonsurgical spine provider's role in these referrals for spine pathology is needed. Patients from outside of the state or younger than 65 years could benefit from pre-visit screening as well to optimize a surgeon's clinic time use and streamline patient care.