Purpose Glioblastoma prognosis is poor. Treatment options are limited at progression. Surgery may benefit, but no quality guidelines exist to inform patient selection. We sought to describe variations in surgical management at progression, highlight where further evidence is needed, and build towards a consensus strategy. Methods Current practice in selection of patients with progressive GBM for second surgery was surveyed online amongst specialists in the UK and Europe. We complemented this with an assessment of practice in a retrospective cohort study from six United Kingdom neurosurgical units. We used descriptive statistics to analyse the data. Results 234 questionnaire responses were received. Maintaining or improving patient quality of life was key to decision making, with variation as to whether patient age, performance status or intended extent of resection was relevant. MGMT methylation status was not important. Half considered no minimum time after first surgery. 288 patients were reported in the cohort analysis. Median time to second surgery from first surgery 390 days. Median overall survival 815 days, with no association between time to second surgery and time to death (p = 0.874). Conclusions This is the most wide-ranging examination of contemporaneous practice in management of GBM progression. Without evidence-based guidelines, the variation is unsurprising. We propose consensus guidelines for consideration, to reduce heterogeneity in decision making, support data collection and analysis of factors influencing outcomes, and to inform clinical trials to establish whether second surgery improves patient outcomes, or simply selects to patients already performing well.

No abstract

Purpose of Review To provide a detailed overview of the investigations and core outcome measures for olfactory disorders. Recent Findings Olfactory disorders can have a detrimental impact to the quality of life of patients. There are a wide range of causes of olfactory loss including sinonasal conditions, idiopathic, post-head trauma or infection. This review highlights the key investigations and reasoning for their use to clinically assess and research patients with olfactory disorders. In addition, this review outlines the core outcome measures for olfaction that will help inform future research in olfactory disorders. Summary A systematic approach with history taking and examination particularly with nasal endoscopy can determine the cause of the olfactory disorder in most cases. Specific olfactory disorder questionnaires can demonstrate the impact on quality of life, while psychophysical testing can objectively assess and monitor olfaction over time. Olfactory-evoked potentials and functional MRI are reserved for research, whereas CT and MRI imaging are used depending on history and examination. A core outcome set for olfaction has been developed that will help standardise the outcome measures used in olfaction and olfactory disorders research.

Importance: Although observational studies demonstrate that higher levels of vascular risk factors are associated with an increased risk of dementia, these associations might be explained by confounding or other biases. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic instruments to test causal relationships in observational data. Objective: To determine if genetically predicted modifiable risk factors (type 2 diabetes mellitus, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, and circulating glucose) are associated with dementia by meta-analysing published MR studies. Secondary objectives were to identify heterogeneity in effect estimates across primary MR studies and to compare meta-analysis results with observational studies. Data sources: MR studies identified by systematic search of Web of Science, OVID and Scopus. Study selection: Primary MR studies investigating the modifiable risk factors of interest. Only one study from each cohort per risk factor was included. A quality assessment tool was developed to primarily assess the three assumptions of MR for each MR study. Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted on study characteristics, exposure and outcome, effect estimates per unit increase, and measures of variation. Effect estimates were pooled to generate an overall estimate, I2 and Cochrane Q values using fixed-effect model. Main outcomes and measures: Odds ratio (OR) of developing dementia per standardized unit increase in the risk factor of interest. Results: We screened 5211 studies and included 12 primary MR studies after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Higher genetically predicted body mass index was associated with a higher odds of dementia (OR 1.03 [1.01, 1.05] per 5 kg/m2 increase, one study, p = 0.00285). Overall estimates from MR studies showed a smaller number of associations than those from meta-analyses of observational studies. Conclusion and relevance: Genetically predicted body mass index was associated with an increase in risk of dementia.

Background:  Although observational studies demonstrate that higher levels of vascular risk factors are associated with an increased risk of dementia, these associations might be explained by confounding or other biases. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic instruments to test causal relationships in observational data. We sought to determine if genetically predicted modifiable risk factors (type 2 diabetes mellitus, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, and circulating glucose) are associated with dementia by meta-analysing published MR studies. Secondary objectives were to identify heterogeneity in effect estimates across primary MR studies and to compare meta-analysis results with observational studies. Methods: MR studies were identified by systematic search of Web of Science, OVID and Scopus. We selected primary MR studies investigating the modifiable risk factors of interest. Only one study from each cohort per risk factor was included. A quality assessment tool was developed to primarily assess the three assumptions of MR for each MR study. Data were extracted on study characteristics, exposure and outcome, effect estimates per unit increase, and measures of variation. Effect estimates were pooled to generate an overall estimate, I2 and Cochrane Q values using fixed-effect model. Results: We screened 5211 studies and included 12 primary MR studies after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Higher genetically predicted body mass index was associated with a higher odds of dementia (OR 1.03 [1.01, 1.05] per 5 kg/m2 increase, one study, p=0.00285). Fewer hypothesized vascular risk factors were supported by estimates from MR studies than estimates from meta-analyses of observational studies.   Conclusion: Genetically predicted body mass index was associated with an increase in risk of dementia.