Brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) are relatively rare, although their potential for secondary intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) makes their diagnosis and management essential to the community. Currently, invasive therapies (surgical resection, stereotactic radiosurgery and endovascular embolisation) are the only interventions that offer a reduction in ICH risk. There is no designated medical therapy for bAVM, although there is growing animal and human evidence supporting a role for bevacizumab to reduce the size of AVMs. In this single-arm pilot study, two patients with large bAVMs (deemed unresectable by an interdisciplinary team) received bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. Due to limitations of external funding, the intended sample size of 10 participants was not reached. Primary outcome measure was change in bAVM volume from baseline at 26 and 52 weeks. No change in bAVM volume was observed 26 or 52 weeks after bevacizumab treatment. No clinically important adverse events were observed during the 52-week study period. There were no observed instances of ICH. Sera vascular endothelial growth factor levels were reduced at 26 weeks and returned to baseline at 52 weeks. This pilot study is the first to test bevacizumab for patients with bAVMs. Bevacizumab therapy was well tolerated in both subjects. No radiographic changes were observed over the 52-week study period. Subsequent larger clinical trials are in order to assess for dose-dependent efficacy and rarer adverse drug effects.Trial registration number: NCT02314377.

BACKGROUND Gliomas are often in close proximity to functional regions of the brain; therefore, electrocortical stimulation (ECS) mapping is a common technique utilized during glioma resection to identify functional areas. Stimulation-induced seizure (SIS) remains the most common reason for aborted procedures. Few studies have focused on oncological factors impacting cortical stimulation thresholds. OBJECTIVE To examine oncological factors thought to impact stimulation threshold in order to understand whether a linear relationship exists between stimulation current and number of functional cortical sites identified. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed single-institution prospectively collected brain mapping data of patients with dominant hemisphere gliomas. Comparisons of stimulation threshold were made using t-tests and ANOVAs. Associations between oncologic factors and stimulation threshold were made using multivariate regressions. The association between stimulation current and number of positive sites was made using a Poisson model. RESULTS Of the 586 patients included in the study, SIS occurred in 3.92% and the rate of SIS events differed by cortical location (frontal 8.5%, insular 1.6%, parietal 1.3%, and temporal 2.8%; P = .009). Stimulation current was lower when mapping frontal cortex (P = .002). Stimulation current was not associated with tumor plus peritumor edema volume, world health organization) (WHO grade, histology, or isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status but was associated with tumor volume within the frontal lobe (P = .018). Stimulation current was not associated with number of positive sites identified during ECS mapping (P = .118). CONCLUSION SISs are rare but serious events during ECS mapping. SISs are most common when mapping the frontal lobe. Greater stimulation current is not associated with the identification of more cortical functional sites during glioma surgery.

Surgical resection is standard of care for patients with lesions concerning for high-grade glioma on MRI scan. There is no consensus on the urgency of the procedure for patients with good clinical performance status. Treatment history and functional outcomes were collected retrospectively from the electronic medical record for 105 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed WHO Grade IV gliomas who underwent surgical resection at the University of California, San Francisco in 2014 and 2015 (41% female, average age = 61.25). Median preoperative KPS score was 80. Median wait time to surgery was 11 days after the initial MRI scan (range: 0–213 days). Mean tumor volume at the time of initial MRI scan was 29.0 cm3 (SD = 26.1 cm3), which did not significantly differ from the mean pre-operative tumor volume of 31.2 cm3 (SD = 27.3 cm3). In this retrospective cohort, patients with larger glioblastomas were taken to surgery more quickly. Patients who presented to the emergency room were more likely to wait less than 7 days (p < 0.001). Patients who waited less than 7 days had a larger initial and pre-operative tumor volume compared to patients who waited between 7–21 days and patients who waited over 21 days (p=< 0.001, p=< 0.001). Tumor growth occurred in 10% of patients who waited one week or less, 26% of patients who waited one to three weeks, and 55% of patients who waited over 3 weeks. Overall survival was not significantly affected by wait time until tumor resection (p=0.52). Additionally, Tumor growth was not associated with postoperative outcomes including postoperative KPS score, postoperative deficits, 3-month follow up KPS score, overall survival, and survival after surgery. In conclusion, longer wait time to surgery does not impact overall survival, pre-, and post-operative KPS, but the tumor is likely to grow in the interim.

OBJECTIVE Maximal safe resection is the standard of care for patients presenting with lesions concerning for glioblastoma (GBM) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Currently, there is no consensus on surgical urgency for patients with an excellent performance status, which complicates patient counseling and may increase patient anxiety. This study aims to assess the impact of time to surgery (TTS) on clinical and survival outcomes in patients with GBM. METHODS This is a retrospective study of 145 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed IDH–wild-type GBM who underwent initial resection at the University of California, San Francisco, between 2014 and 2016. Patients were grouped according to the time from diagnostic MRI to surgery (i.e., TTS): ≤ 7, > 7–21, and > 21 days. Contrast-enhancing tumor volumes (CETVs) were measured using software. Initial CETV (CETV1) and preoperative CETV (CETV2) were used to evaluate tumor growth represented as percent change (ΔCETV) and specific growth rate (SPGR; % growth/day). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the date of resection and were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS Of the 145 patients (median TTS 10 days), 56 (39%), 53 (37%), and 36 (25%) underwent surgery ≤ 7, > 7–21, and > 21 days from initial imaging, respectively. Median OS and PFS among the study cohort were 15.5 and 10.3 months, respectively, and did not differ among the TTS groups (p = 0.81 and 0.17, respectively). Median CETV1 was 35.9, 15.7, and 10.2 cm3 across the TTS groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Preoperative biopsy and presenting to an outside hospital emergency department were associated with an average 12.79-day increase and 9.09-day decrease in TTS, respectively. Distance from the treating facility (median 57.19 miles) did not affect TTS. In the growth cohort, TTS was associated with an average 2.21% increase in ΔCETV per day; however, there was no effect of TTS on SPGR, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), postoperative deficits, survival, discharge location, or hospital length of stay. Subgroup analyses did not identify any high-risk groups for which a shorter TTS may be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS An increased TTS for patients with imaging concerning for GBM did not impact clinical outcomes, and while there was a significant association with ΔCETV, SPGR remained unaffected. However, SPGR was associated with a worse preoperative KPS, which highlights the importance of tumor growth speed over TTS. Therefore, while it is ill advised to wait an unnecessarily long time after initial imaging studies, these patients do not require urgent/emergency surgery and can seek tertiary care opinions and/or arrange for additional preoperative support/resources. Future studies are needed to explore subgroups for whom TTS may impact clinical outcomes.