No abstract

Background In recent years an increasing number of patients with cerebral metastasis (CM) have been referred to the neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team (NMDT). Our aim was to obtain a national picture of CM referrals to assess referral volume and quality and factors affecting NMDT decision making. Methods A prospective multicenter cohort study including all adult patients referred to NMDT with 1 or more CM was conducted. Data were collected in neurosurgical units from November 2017 to February 2018. Demographics, primary disease, KPS, imaging, and treatment recommendation were entered into an online database. Results A total of 1048 patients were analyzed from 24 neurosurgical units. Median age was 65 years (range, 21-93 years) with a median number of 3 referrals (range, 1-17 referrals) per NMDT. The most common primary malignancies were lung (36.5%, n = 383), breast (18.4%, n = 193), and melanoma (12.0%, n = 126). A total of 51.6% (n = 541) of the referrals were for a solitary metastasis and resulted in specialist intervention being offered in 67.5% (n = 365) of cases. A total of 38.2% (n = 186) of patients being referred with multiple CMs were offered specialist treatment. NMDT decision making was associated with number of CMs, age, KPS, primary disease status, and extent of extracranial disease (univariate logistic regression, P < .001) as well as sentinel location and tumor histology (P < .05). A delay in reaching an NMDT decision was identified in 18.6% (n = 195) of cases. Conclusions This study demonstrates a changing landscape of metastasis management in the United Kingdom and Ireland, including a trend away from adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy and specialist intervention being offered to a significant proportion of patients with multiple CMs. Poor quality or incomplete referrals cause delay in NMDT decision making.

No abstract

Aims Ependymomas (tumours arising from ependymal cells) are rare in the adult population and therefore there is limited class 1 evidence on the treatment and management of these patients. We present our experience from a large single center. We address whether management should be undertaken by sub-specialised surgeons with high volume experience. Method Retrospective comparative study. Results High volume surgeons operated on larger volume (16.14 mm3, 8.31mm3, p=0.10) and more complex tumours (multi-centric cases p=0.10). We find a non-significant improvement in complication rate (p=0.77), extent of gross total resection (70.8% against 65.7%) and a positive change in performance status for high volume surgeons (p=0.84). Length of hospital stay is significantly prolonged when complications occur (14.2 and 48.4 days, p<0.05). Conclusion Surgeons who have higher case load of ependymomas operate on more complex tumours. In addition, our results indicate there is a technical advantage of high volume surgeons compared to low volume surgeons, which translates into improved clinical outcomes for patients. We show that this has a significant impact on length of hospital stay, as well as the associated economical implications. For rare tumours such as ependymomas, super-specialisation and referral to surgeons with higher case volume will likely improve patient outcomes. We call for a multi-centre, prospective studies to combine data in demonstrating statistical significance (power calculation for complication rate, N=150, p=0.05).