Dataset Information

Timing of glioblastoma surgery and patient outcomes: a multicenter cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The impact of time-to-surgery on clinical outcome for patients with glioblastoma has not been determined. Any delay in treatment is perceived as detrimental, but guidelines do not specify acceptable timings. In this study, we relate the time to glioblastoma surgery with the extent of resection and residual tumor volume, performance change, and survival, and we explore the identification of patients for urgent surgery.

Methods

Adults with first-time surgery in 2012-2013 treated by 12 neuro-oncological teams were included in this study. We defined time-to-surgery as the number of days between the diagnostic MR scan and surgery. The relation between time-to-surgery and patient and tumor characteristics was explored in time-to-event analysis and proportional hazard models. Outcome according to time-to-surgery was analyzed by volumetric measurements, changes in performance status, and survival analysis with patient and tumor characteristics as modifiers.

Results

Included were 1033 patients of whom 729 had a resection and 304 a biopsy. The overall median time-to-surgery was 13 days. Surgery was within 3 days for 235 (23%) patients, and within a month for 889 (86%). The median volumetric doubling time was 22 days. Lower performance status (hazard ratio [HR] 0.942, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.893-0.994) and larger tumor volume (HR 1.012, 95% CI 1.010-1.014) were independently associated with a shorter time-to-surgery. Extent of resection, residual tumor volume, postoperative performance change, and overall survival were not associated with time-to-surgery.

Conclusions

With current decision-making for urgent surgery in selected patients with glioblastoma and surgery typically within 1 month, we found equal extent of resection, residual tumor volume, performance status, and survival after longer times-to-surgery.

SUBMITTER: Muller DMJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8156977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients' expectations of an anticipated timeline of recovery and fear of anesthesia in aesthetic breast surgery have not been studied.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess patient anxiety, expectations, and satisfaction after Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways for aesthetic breast surgery and the progress of postoperative recovery.Materials and methodsAll consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast surgery between April 2021 and August 2022 were included in this single-center prospective cohort study. The ERAS protocol consists of more than 20 individual measures in the pre-, intra-, and postoperative period. Epidemiological data, expectations, and recovery were systematically assessed with standardized self-assessment questionnaires, including the International Pain Outcome Questionnaire (IPO), the BREAST-Q or BODY-Q, and data collection forms.ResultsIn total, 48 patients with a median of 30 years of age were included. Patients returned to most daily activities within 5 days. Eighty-eight percent of patients were able to accomplish daily activities sooner than expected. The time of return to normal daily activities was similar across all procedure types. There was no statistically significant difference regarding postoperative satisfaction between patients who recovered slower (12%) and patients who recovered as fast or faster (88%) than anticipated (p=0.180). Patients reporting fear of anesthesia in the form of conscious sedation significantly diminished from 17 to 4% postoperatively (p<0.001).ConclusionEnhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways for aesthetic breast surgery are associated with rapid recovery and high patient satisfaction. This survey study provides valuable insight into patients' concerns and perspectives that may be implemented in patient education and consultations to improve patient satisfaction following aesthetic treatments.Level of evidence ivThis journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .