Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of pediatric glioma outcomes using intraoperative MRI: a multicenter cohort study

  • Clinical Study
  • Published:
Journal of Neuro-Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The use of intraoperative MRI (iMRI) during treatment of gliomas may increase extent of resection (EOR), decrease need for early reoperation, and increase progression-free and overall survival, but has not been fully validated, particularly in the pediatric population.

Objective

To assess the accuracy of iMRI to identify residual tumor in pediatric patients with glioma and determine the effect of iMRI on decisions for resection, complication rates, and other outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed a multicenter database of pediatric patients (age ≤ 18 years) who underwent resection of pathologically confirmed gliomas.

Results

We identified 314 patients (mean age 9.7 ± 4.6 years) with mean follow-up of 48.3 ± 33.6 months (range 0.03–182.07 months) who underwent surgery with iMRI. There were 201 (64.0%) WHO grade I tumors, 57 (18.2%) grade II, 24 (7.6%) grade III, 9 (2.9%) grade IV, and 23 (7.3%) not classified. Among 280 patients who underwent resection using iMRI, 131 (46.8%) had some residual tumor and underwent additional resection after the first iMRI. Of the 33 tissue specimens sent for pathological analysis after iMRI, 29 (87.9%) showed positive tumor pathology. Gross total resection was identified in 156 patients (55.7%), but this was limited by 69 (24.6%) patients with unknown EOR.

Conclusions

Analysis of the largest multicenter database of pediatric gliomas resected using iMRI demonstrated additional tumor resection in a substantial portion of cases. However, determining the impact of iMRI on EOR and outcomes remains challenging because iMRI use varies among providers nationally. Continued refinement of iMRI techniques for use in pediatric patients with glioma may improve outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sturm D, Pfister SM, Jones DTW (2017) Pediatric gliomas: current concepts on diagnosis, biology, and clinical management. J Clin Oncol 35(21):2370–2377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Karsy M, Guan J, Cohen AL, Jensen RL, Colman H (2017) New molecular considerations for glioma: IDH, ATRX, BRAF, TERT, H3 K27M. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 17(2):19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rao G. Intraoperative (2017) MRI and maximizing extent of resection. Neurosurg Clin N Am 28(4):477–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lau D, Hervey-Jumper SL, Han SJ, Berger MS (2018) Intraoperative perception and estimates on extent of resection during awake glioma surgery: overcoming the learning curve. J Neurosurg 128(5):1410–1418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roder C, Bisdas S, Ebner FH et al (2014) Maximizing the extent of resection and survival benefit of patients in glioblastoma surgery: high-field iMRI versus conventional and 5-ALA-assisted surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 40(3):297–304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roder C, Breitkopf M, Ms et al (2016) Beneficial impact of high-field intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging on the efficacy of pediatric low-grade glioma surgery. Neurosurg Focus 40(3):E13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Senft C, Bink A, Franz K et al (2011) Intraoperative MRI guidance and extent of resection in glioma surgery: a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 12(11):997–1003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu JS, Gong X, Song YY et al (2014) 3.0-T intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging-guided resection in cerebral glioma surgery: interim analysis of a prospective, randomized, triple-blind, parallel-controlled trial. Neurosurgery 61(Suppl 1):145–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Samdani AF, Schulder M, Catrambone JE, Carmel PW (2005) Use of a compact intraoperative low-field magnetic imager in pediatric neurosurgery. Childs Nerv Syst 21(2):108–113; discussion 114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shah MN, Leonard JR, Inder G et al (2012) Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging to reduce the rate of early reoperation for lesion resection in pediatric neurosurgery. J Neurosurg Pediatr 9(3):259–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tejada S, Avula S, Pettorini B et al (2018) The impact of intraoperative magnetic resonance in routine pediatric neurosurgical practice-a 6-year appraisal. Childs Nerv Syst 34(4):617–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaya S, Deniz S, Duz B, Daneyemez M, Gonul E (2012) Use of an ultra-low field intraoperative MRI system for pediatric brain tumor cases: initial experience with ‘PoleStar N20’. Turk Neurosurg 22(2):218–225

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kubben PL, ter Meulen KJ, Schijns OE et al (2011) Intraoperative MRI-guided resection of glioblastoma multiforme: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 12(11):1062–1070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Theodosopoulos PV, Leach J, Kerr RG et al (2010) Maximizing the extent of tumor resection during transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary macroadenomas: can endoscopy replace intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging? J Neurosurg 112(4):736–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sylvester PT, Evans JA, Zipfel GJ et al (2015) Combined high-field intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopy increase extent of resection and progression-free survival for pituitary adenomas. Pituitary 18(1):72–85

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwartz TH, Stieg PE, Anand VK. Endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery with intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurgery. 2006;58(1 Suppl):ONS44-51; discussion ONS44-51.

  17. Leuthardt EC, Lim CC, Shah MN et al (2011) Use of movable high-field-strength intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging with awake craniotomies for resection of gliomas: preliminary experience. Neurosurgery 69(1):194–205; discussion 205 – 196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Giordano M, Samii A, Lawson McLean AC et al (2017) Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric neurosurgery: safety and utility. J Neurosurg Pediatr 19(1):77–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen LF, Yang Y, Ma XD et al (2017) Optimizing the extent of resection and minimizing the morbidity in insular high-grade glioma surgery by high-field intraoperative MRI guidance. Turk Neurosurg 27(5):696–706

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Coburger J, Wirtz CR, Konig RW (2017) Impact of extent of resection and recurrent surgery on clinical outcome and overall survival in a consecutive series of 170 patients for glioblastoma in intraoperative high field magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg Sci 61(3):233–244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Coburger J, Merkel A, Scherer M et al (2016) Low-grade glioma surgery in intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging: results of a multicenter retrospective assessment of the german study group for intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurgery 78(6):775–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jenkinson MD, Barone DG, Bryant A et al (2018) Intraoperative imaging technology to maximise extent of resection for glioma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD012788

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Li P, Qian R, Niu C, Fu X (2017) Impact of intraoperative MRI-guided resection on resection and survival in patient with gliomas: a meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 33(4):621–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Coburger J, Hagel V, Wirtz CR, Konig R (2015) Surgery for glioblastoma: impact of the combined use of 5-aminolevulinic acid and intraoperative MRI on extent of resection and survival. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0131872

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Quick-Weller J, Lescher S, Forster MT et al (2016) Combination of 5-ALA and iMRI in re-resection of recurrent glioblastoma. Br J Neurosurg 30(3):313–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nickel K, Renovanz M, Konig J et al (2018) The patients’ view: impact of the extent of resection, intraoperative imaging, and awake surgery on health-related quality of life in high-grade glioma patients-results of a multicenter cross-sectional study. Neurosurg Rev 41(1):207–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Coburger J, Nabavi A, Konig R, Wirtz CR, Pala A (2017) Contemporary use of intraoperative imaging in glioma surgery: a survey among EANS members. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 163:133–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Suero Molina E, Schipmann S, Stummer W. Maximizing safe resections: the roles of 5-aminolevulinic acid and intraoperative MR imaging in glioma surgery-review of the literature. Neurosurg Rev 2017

  29. Motomura K, Natsume A, Iijima K et al (2017) Surgical benefits of combined awake craniotomy and intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging for gliomas associated with eloquent areas. J Neurosurg 127(4):790–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lam CH, Hall WA, Truwit CL, Liu H (2001) Intra-operative MRI-guided approaches to the pediatric posterior fossa tumors. Pediatr Neurosurg 34(6):295–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hall WA, Kowalik K, Liu H, Truwit CL, Kucharezyk J (2003) Costs and benefits of intraoperative MR-guided brain tumor resection. Acta Neurochir Suppl 85:137–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nimsky C, Ganslandt O, Gralla J, Buchfelder M, Fahlbusch R (2003) Intraoperative low-field magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric neurosurgery. Pediatr Neurosurg 38(2):83–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Roth J, Beni Adani L, Biyani N, Constantini S (2006) Intraoperative portable 0.12-tesla MRI in pediatric neurosurgery. Pediatr Neurosurg 42(2):74–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kremer P, Tronnier V, Steiner HH et al (2006) Intraoperative MRI for interventional neurosurgical procedures and tumor resection control in children. Childs Nerv Syst 22(7):674–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Levy R, Cox RG, Hader WJ et al (2009) Application of intraoperative high-field magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric neurosurgery. J Neurosurg Pediatr 4(5):467–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chicoine MR, Lim CC, Evans JA et al (2011) Implementation and preliminary clinical experience with the use of ceiling mounted mobile high field intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging between two operating rooms. Acta Neurochir Suppl 109:97–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yousaf J, Avula S, Abernethy LJ, Mallucci CL (2012) Importance of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging for pediatric brain tumor surgery. Surg Neurol Int 3(Suppl 2):S65–S72

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kubben PL, van Santbrink H, ter Laak-Poort M et al (2012) Implementation of a mobile 0.15-T intraoperative MR system in pediatric neuro-oncological surgery: feasibility and correlation with early postoperative high-field strength MRI. Childs Nerv Syst 28(8):1171–1180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Avula S, Pettorini B, Abernethy L et al (2013) High field strength magnetic resonance imaging in paediatric brain tumour surgery–its role in prevention of early repeat resections. Childs Nerv Syst 29(10):1843–1850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Choudhri AF, Klimo P Jr, Auschwitz TS, Whitehead MT, Boop FA (2014) 3T intraoperative MRI for management of pediatric CNS neoplasms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35(12):2382–2387

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Kristin Kraus, M.Sc., for her editorial assistance.

Funding

Funding for establishment and maintenance of the IMRIS iMRI Neurosurgery Database (I-MiND) was provided in part by an unrestricted educational grant from IMRIS, Inc (Minnetonka, MN) and individual participating institutions.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Michael Karsy and S. Hassan Akbari have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Michael Karsy, Samuel Cheshier, Douglas L. Brockmeyer, Robert J. Bollo, John R. Kestle & Randy L. Jensen

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    S. Hassan Akbari, David Limbrick, Eric C. Leuthardt, John Evans, Matthew D. Smyth, Jennifer Strahle & Michael R. Chicoine

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA

    Jeffrey Leonard

  4. Department of Neurosurgery, Cook Children’s Neurosciences, Forth Worth, TX, USA

    John Honeycutt, David J. Donahue, Richard A. Roberts & Daniel R. Hansen

  5. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Jay Riva-Cambrin, Garnette Sutherland, Clair Gallagher, Walter Hader, Yves Starreveld & Mark Hamilton

  6. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, Boston, MA, USA

    Ann-Christine Duhaime

  7. Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Randy L. Jensen

Authors
  1. Michael Karsy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Hassan Akbari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Limbrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric C. Leuthardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew D. Smyth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jennifer Strahle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jeffrey Leonard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Samuel Cheshier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Douglas L. Brockmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Robert J. Bollo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. John R. Kestle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. John Honeycutt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. David J. Donahue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Richard A. Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Daniel R. Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Jay Riva-Cambrin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Garnette Sutherland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Clair Gallagher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Walter Hader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Yves Starreveld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Mark Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Ann-Christine Duhaime
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Randy L. Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Michael R. Chicoine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randy L. Jensen.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

11060_2019_3154_MOESM1_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure S1: Distribution of age and tumor size for cohort. A) Patient age and B) tumor size approximate normal distributions (TIF 3943 KB)

11060_2019_3154_MOESM2_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure S2: Evaluation of overall survival (OS) depending on WHO grade for cohort. Evaluation of OS for WHO grade A) I, B) II, C) III, and D) IV tumors is shown. No significant difference in OS was seen based on WHO grade. (TIF 2663 KB)

11060_2019_3154_MOESM3_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure S3: Evaluation of progression-free survival (OS) depending on WHO grade for cohort. Evaluation of PFS for WHO grade A) I, B) II, C) III, and D) IV tumors is shown. No significant difference in PFS was seen based on WHO grade (TIF 2824 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karsy, M., Akbari, S.H., Limbrick, D. et al. Evaluation of pediatric glioma outcomes using intraoperative MRI: a multicenter cohort study. J Neurooncol 143, 271–280 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03154-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03154-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation