Surgery for low-grade glioma infiltrating the central cerebral region: location as a predictive factor for neurological deficit, epileptological outcome, and quality of life
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
23767891
Abstract
OBJECT
A main concern with regard to surgery for low-grade glioma (LGG, WHO Grade II) is maintenance of the patient's functional integrity. This concern is particularly relevant for gliomas in the central region, where damage can have grave repercussions. The authors evaluated postsurgical outcomes with regard to neurological deficits, seizures, and quality of life.
METHODS
Outcomes were compared for 33 patients with central LGG (central cohort) and a control cohort of 31 patients with frontal LGG (frontal cohort), all of whom had had medically intractable seizures before undergoing surgery with mapping while awake. All surgeries were performed in the period from February 2007 through April 2010 at the same institution.
RESULTS
For the central cohort, the median extent of resection was 92% (range 80%-97%), and for the frontal cohort, the median extent of resection was 93% (range 83%-98%; p = 1.0). Although the rate of mild neurological deficits was similar for both groups, seizure freedom (Engel Class I) was achieved for only 4 (12.1%) of 33 patients in the central cohort compared with 26 (83.9%) of 31 patients in the frontal cohort (p < 0.0001). The rate of return to work was lower for patients in the central cohort (4 [12.1%] of 33) than for the patients in the frontal cohort (28 [90.3%] of 31; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Resection of central LGG is feasible and safe when appropriate intraoperative mapping is used. However, seizure control for these patients remains poor, a finding that contrasts markedly with seizure control for patients in the frontal cohort and with that reported in the literature. For patients with central LGG, poor seizure control ultimately determines quality of life because most will not be able to return to work.
A main concern with regard to surgery for low-grade glioma (LGG, WHO Grade II) is maintenance of the patient's functional integrity. This concern is particularly relevant for gliomas in the central region, where damage can have grave repercussions. The authors evaluated postsurgical outcomes with regard to neurological deficits, seizures, and quality of life.
METHODS
Outcomes were compared for 33 patients with central LGG (central cohort) and a control cohort of 31 patients with frontal LGG (frontal cohort), all of whom had had medically intractable seizures before undergoing surgery with mapping while awake. All surgeries were performed in the period from February 2007 through April 2010 at the same institution.
RESULTS
For the central cohort, the median extent of resection was 92% (range 80%-97%), and for the frontal cohort, the median extent of resection was 93% (range 83%-98%; p = 1.0). Although the rate of mild neurological deficits was similar for both groups, seizure freedom (Engel Class I) was achieved for only 4 (12.1%) of 33 patients in the central cohort compared with 26 (83.9%) of 31 patients in the frontal cohort (p < 0.0001). The rate of return to work was lower for patients in the central cohort (4 [12.1%] of 33) than for the patients in the frontal cohort (28 [90.3%] of 31; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Resection of central LGG is feasible and safe when appropriate intraoperative mapping is used. However, seizure control for these patients remains poor, a finding that contrasts markedly with seizure control for patients in the frontal cohort and with that reported in the literature. For patients with central LGG, poor seizure control ultimately determines quality of life because most will not be able to return to work.
Date Issued
2013-08
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
Language(s)
en
Author(s)
Ghareeb, Fadi | |
Duffau, Hugues |
Additional Credits
Journal
Journal of neurosurgery
Publisher
American Association of Neurological Surgeons
ISSN
0022-3085
Access(Rights)
metadata.only