4.6 Article

Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy as a Primary Treatment for Deep Inaccessible Gliomas

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 768-777

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyy238

关键词

Laser; Treatment; Glioma; Deep; Outcomes; Ablation; Volumetric

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Treatment strategies for deep intracranial gliomas remain limited to stereotactic biopsy in many cases due to the morbidity of aggressive surgical resection. Since no cytoreductive therapy is offered, outcomes have been demonstrably poor compared to patients who are able to undergo primary surgical resection. OBJECTIVE To present our practice, in an effort to reduce morbidity and still offer cytoreductive treatment, of offering the possibility of laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) for the primary treatment of intracranial deep gliomas that would be otherwise unamenable for resection. METHODS From 2010 to 2017, 74 patients were identified from a single surgeon at a single tertiary care referral center who had been treated with LITT. We conducted an exploratory cohort study on patients (n = 6) who have undergone contemporaneous biopsy and laser ablation for the treatment of deep gliomas with a mean tumor volume of 10.9 cc (range 4.2-52 cc). RESULTS In our cohort, mean extent of ablation (EOA) was 98.5% on postoperative MRI; mean progression-free survival was 14.3 mo, and 5 patients (83%) remained alive at mean follow-up time of 19.7 mo without any complications. Additionally, there was a negative linear relationship between preoperative lesion size and EOA (P<.04) when analyzed with previously reported series. CONCLUSION Although our series is small, we suggest that LITT can be a safe alternative cytoreductive therapy for deep surgically inaccessible gliomas. Given the known benefit of near gross total resection for high-grade gliomas, we believe LITT may improve survival for these patients and complement adjuvant treatments if patients are appropriately selected.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据