Search

Background Frailty is an emerging means of assessing overall health status and guiding management for geriatric patients. Frailty is associated with outcomes for many surgical indications in this age group. While half of all glioblastoma patients are 65 years old or older, frailty has not been examined in relation to surgery for glioblastoma. Methods We performed a retrospective study of patients age 65 years and older with pathologically confirmed glioblastoma at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital from 2000 to 2012; 319 patients were identified, 243 of whom underwent craniotomy for lobar lesions. Frailty was quantified using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Modified Frailty Index. Postoperative complications were classified according the Glioma Outcomes Project system. Systemic, regional, neurologic, and overall complications were examined in relation to age, Karnofsky performance status, frailty, comorbid disease burden, cardiovascular risk, and tumor sidedness. Results Frailer patients were less likely to undergo surgical resection (P = 0.0002; odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.40) as opposed to biopsy, had longer hospital stays (log-rank test for trend, P = 0.0061), an increased overall risk of complications (P = 0.0123; OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08–1.83), and decreased overall survival (Log rank test for trend, P = 0.0028). Conclusions Frailer patients with glioblastoma receive less aggressive intervention, have longer hospital stays, and experience more complications. Frailty may be an underused metric for the preoperative risk assessment of geriatric glioblastoma patients.

Background Glioblastoma (GBM) occurs more commonly in elderly patients. However, these patients are often excluded from clinical trials. The absence of solid evidence has resulted in a nihilistic view of GBM in the elderly and a traditionally conservative treatment approach. In particular, the safety of surgical resection for both primary and recurrent GBM is poorly understood in elderly patients. Methods In a retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥65 years, we examined selection for biopsy, surgical resection, and reoperation for recurrent disease. We also analyzed complication rates after initial resection and reoperation for recurrent disease. We identified 319 elderly patients with pathologically proven GBM who underwent a total of 274 craniotomies at our institution between 2000 and 2012. Events were reported according to the methods used in the Glioma Outcomes Project. Results The overall rate of complications after resection was 21.9%, with a rate of neurological complications of 7.7%. The rates of neurological, regional, and systemic complications were not significantly different after initial craniotomy and reoperation for GBM in elderly patients. Reoperations were not associated with an increased risk of complications. Low cardiovascular risk, improved functional status, and hemispheric GBM were associated with selection for more aggressive surgical treatment. Younger age and improved functional status were associated with a reduced likelihood of complications. Conclusions We conclude that in select patients, age alone should not preclude the decision to pursue aggressive surgical management.

BACKGROUND: Extent of resection (EOR) correlates with glioblastoma outcomes. Resectability and EOR depend on anatomical, clinical, and surgeon factors. Resectability likely influences outcome in and of itself, but an accurate measurement of resectability remains elusive. An understanding of resectability and the factors that influence it may provide a means to control a confounder in clinical trials and provide reference for decision making. OBJECTIVE: To provide proof of concept of the use of the collective wisdom of experienced brain tumor surgeons in assessing glioblastoma resectability. METHODS: We surveyed 13 academic tumor neurosurgeons nationwide to assess the resectability of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Participants reviewed 20 cases, including digital imaging and communications in medicine-formatted pre- and postoperative magnetic resonance images and clinical vignettes. The selected cases involved a variety of anatomical locations and a range of EOR. Participants were asked about surgical goal, eg, gross total resection, subtotal resection (STR), or biopsy, and rationale for their decision. We calculated a “resectability index” for each lesion by pooling responses from all 13 surgeons. RESULTS: Neurosurgeons’ individual surgical goals varied significantly (P = .015), but the resectability index calculated from the surgeons’ pooled responses was strongly correlated with the percentage of contrast-enhancing residual tumor (R = 0.817, P < .001). The collective STR goal predicted intraoperative decision of intentional STR documented on operative notes (P < .01) and nonresectable residual (P < .01), but not resectable residual. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, we demonstrate the feasibility of measuring the resectability of glioblastoma through crowdsourcing. This tool could be used to quantify resectability, a potential confounder in neuro-oncology clinical trials.