Abstract
Purpose
Microneurosurgical techniques have greatly improved over the past years due to the introduction of new technology and surgical concepts. To reevaluate the role of micro-neurosurgery in brain metastases (BM) resection in the era of new systemic and local treatment options, its safety profile needs to be reassessed. The aim of this study was to analyze the rate of adverse events (AEs) according to a systematic, comprehensive and reliably reproducible grading system after microneurosurgical BM resection in a large and modern microneurosurgical series with special emphasis on anatomical location.
Methods
Prospectively collected cases of BM resection between 2013 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Number of AEs, defined as any deviations from the expected postoperative course according to Clavien–Dindo-Grade (CDG) were evaluated. Patient, surgical, and lesion characteristics, including exact anatomic tumor locations, were analyzed using uni- and multivariate logistic regression and survival analysis to identify predictive factors for AEs.
Results
We identified 664 eligible patients with lung cancer being the most common primary tumor (44%), followed by melanoma (25%) and breast cancer (11%). 29 patients (4%) underwent biopsy only whereas BM were resected in 637 (96%) of cases. The overall rate of AEs was 8% at discharge. However, severe AEs (≥ CDG 3a; requiring surgical intervention under local/general anesthesia or ICU treatment) occurred in only 1.9% (n = 12) of cases with a perioperative mortality of 0.6% (n = 4). Infratentorial tumor location (OR 5.46, 95% 2.31–13.8, p = .001), reoperation (OR 2.31, 95% 1.07–4.81, p = .033) and central region tumor location (OR 3.03, 95% 1.03–8.60) showed to be significant predictors in a multivariate analysis for major AEs (CDG ≥ 2 or new neurological deficits). Neither deep supratentorial nor central region tumors were associated with more major AEs compared to convexity lesions.
Conclusions
Modern microneurosurgical resection can be considered an excellent option in the management of BM in terms of safety, as the overall rate of major AEs are very rare even in eloquent and deep-seated lesions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Brain metastases (BM) are the most common form of malignant central nervous system tumors, and their incidence is increasing due to improved systemic therapies and therefore survival rates of patients with solitary tumors. In recent years new treatment modalities have arisen mostly incorporating targeted and immunotherapeutic agents [1] and yet microneurosurgical resection with adjuvant radiotherapy has remained the mainstay for local control, especially for patients with solitary BM [2, 3]. Traditionally, microneurosurgical resection of BM has been considered primarily for solitary or symptomatic lesions, or in patients with unknown primary tumor for histopathological diagnosis. Multiple and/or asymptomatic metastasis, or those in deep or so-called “eloquent” regions are preferentially referred to radiotherapy, either in single or in multiple sessions [2]. However, the introduction of new therapeutic modalities and concepts [4,5,6] together with continuously improving microneurosurgical techniques warrants the need to reassess the value of surgical tumor burden reduction within multimodal treatment concepts [7], and the safety of microneurosurgical BM resection not only in solitary and superficial lesions but also in multiple, highly eloquent and deep-seated tumors.
Adverse events (AE), defined as any deviation from the expected postoperative course, can significantly affect patients’ outcome due to the delay of adjuvant or subsequent treatment with a possible negative effect on overall survival [8, 9]. Historically, the rate of AEs after radiotherapy, particularly radiosurgery, is assumed to be lower [10, 11] than after micro-neurosurgery [12,13,14], but modern and large series with a clear definition and systematic reliably reproducible grading of AEs are scarce, particularly with respect to different anatomical BM locations.
With the introduction of new treatment modalities for BM, it is crucial to reassess the safety of modern microneurosurgical BM resection especially considering multiple, central region and deep-seated lesions. Here we report a large series of 666 patients of which 537 underwent microneurosurgical resection in the last decade for histologically confirmed BM. Particular emphasis is put on surgical outcome and standardized assessment of AEs characteristics.
Methods
Study cohort, data acquisition and ethical considerations
All patients who underwent microneurosurgical resection or biopsy of histologically confirmed BM between January 2012 and June 2022 at our institution were included. Patient records were extracted from our prospectively recorded institutional registry [15]. The registry was approved upfront by the local ethics review board (PB-2017-00093) and internationally registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01628406). Parameters extracted from the registry contained age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) risk classification, length of stay (LOS), modified Rankin scale (mRS), Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), surgical characteristics and AEs at discharge. mRS and KPS were used as general clinical performance scales. Complications are defined as any deviation of the usual, expected postoperative course and are graded according to the Clavien–Dindo Grading system (CDG, see Online resource 1) [16,17,18]. For ease of handling, for each case only the complication with the highest CDG entered further analysis, if not stated otherwise.
All data were collected by staff neurosurgeons at the time of hospital admission, surgery, hospital discharge, and at each outpatient follow-up visit. Discharge reports are validated by the attending neurosurgeon responsible for the patient. In addition, all AEs are validated at the monthly department meeting and at the monthly morbidity and mortality meeting to ensure an accurate data collection. Data entry is performed by neurosurgeons only, and each new team member is provided with introductory training and written instructions in the form of a standardized operating procedure and is required to obtain a certificate on the correct use of the clinical and complication scores.
For each case, the number of craniotomies, surgical modalities such as intraoperative ultrasound, neuromonitoring and intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as number of metastases and anatomic gyral location of resected tumors were additionally extracted from the hospital’s electronic medical record system. Pre- and postoperative T1-weighted MRI images with gadolinium contrast were used to determine anatomical location of the BM and were confirmed by neuroradiological reports and an experienced consultant neurosurgeon. Tumor location was divided into infra- and supratentorial and further stratified into superficial and deep-seated. Deep lesions were defined as tumor location in the cuneus, precuneus, corona radiata, basal ganglia, thalamus, cingulate gyrus, ventricles, operculum, medial and lateral occipitotemporal gyrus, orbital gyrus, insula, clivus, parahippocampal gyrus, corpus callosum, pineal region, gyrus rectus, medulla oblongata, pons as depicted in Online resource 2.
Statistical analysis
All data processing and analysis steps were performed with R Studio (Version 1.4, R Studio Inc.) [19] using open-source libraries. Plotting of anatomical locations on a reference brain atlas was done using the coldcuts R package [20]. Missing values were considered missing at random and therefore omitted from all analysis. Continuous variables are given as means and standard deviation (SD) whereas categorical variables are reported as numbers and percentages of total. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to find predictive features for AEs. The statistical tests used are additionally indicated in the figure captions or the main text. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Further study cohort stratification was based on the occurrence of major AEs at discharge which are defined as the occurrence of any AE with CDG ≥ 2 or a new neurological deficit at discharge.
Data and script availability
Raw data and analysis scripts are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Results
Study cohort characteristics
A total of 664 patients which underwent surgery of BM were included in the study cohort. Sex was roughly equally distributed with 51% male (n = 337) and 49% female (n = 327). Mean patient age was 61 years and the BM most frequently originated from the lung (44%, n = 294) followed by melanoma (25%, n = 163) and breast cancer (11%, n = 74) as depicted in Table 1. In most patients a singular BM was present (50%, n = 336), whereas 2–4 lesions were present in 33% and > 10 lesions in 8.6% of the patients (see Table 1).
BM and surgical characteristics
The most frequently used intraoperative tools were intraoperative neuronavigation (89%) and intraoperative ultrasound (78%). Not surprisingly, neuromonitoring (19%) and intraoperative MRI (4%) were used less often as shown in Table 1. Most of the surgeries were resections (96%) via one craniotomy (89%), while 6% (n = 40) of the patients underwent two and four patients underwent three craniotomies during the same surgery. Biopsy only cases accounted for 4% (n = 27) and 19% of cases were reoperations with previous BM resections (see Table 2, Overall).
78% of cases were located supratentorial, whereas 22% were located infratentorial (n = 145, see Table 2, Overall). Of the supratentorial lesions, 71% had a convexity and 29% a subcortical/deep location. 11% (n = 76) BM were located in the central region, which is comprised of the pre-, post- para- and subcentral gyrus [21]. Online resource 2 and Fig. 1 illustrate the gyral localization of the resected BM in the study cohort. Roughly half of the lesions were either located on the right or left side (50% vs. 44% respectively) while the minority were in the midline (2.6%, n = 17).
Frequency of adverse events and clinical outcomes
The occurrence of any AE at discharge was recorded in 8% (n = 53, see Online resource 3) of the cases, most of which were recorded as CDG 1 and 2 (see Online resource 3), meaning that these AEs did not require any invasive interventions, but only pharmacological or no treatment. Severe AE requiring invasive interventions (CDG 3) or ICU stay (CDG 4) were present in only 1.9% (n = 12) and the mortality rate was 0.6% (n = 4, CDG 5). New neurological deficits occurred in 2% of the entire study cohort (n = 13, see Online resource 3), followed by urinary tract infections, pulmonary artery embolism (each 0.8%, n = 5), postoperative hemorrhage and pneumonia (each 0.6%, n = 4).
Stratifying the study cohort according to the occurrence of major AEs (defined as CDG ≥ 2 or new neurological deficits at discharge), Table 2 shows the occurrence of major AEs for the different anatomic and surgical parameters. Cases with major AEs were more frequently located infratentorial (40% vs. 20%, p ≤ 001, Pearson’s Chi-squared test) or in the midline (8% vs. 2%, p = 0.013, Fisher’s exact test; see Table 2). Major AEs were not associated with deep-seated lesions, the number of craniotomies or emergency operations (see Table 2). Figure 2 shows the postoperative change in clinical outcome scales for the two groups: Patients who experienced an AE had higher mRS scales at discharge compared to admission (see Fig. 2B) compared to patients who did not experience any AE (see Fig. 2A). In addition, considering the relative changes in mRS (see Fig. 2C) and KPS (see Fig. 2D) between discharge and admission, more patients with an AE suffered from a worsening of mRS (44%) and KPS (49%) compared to patients without AEs (11% each, p < 0.001 for mRS and KPS, Pearson’s chi-squared test).
Logistic regression and survival analysis
In univariate logistic regression analysis, ASA status (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.01–2.54, p = 0.044), tumor location in the midline (OR 3.94, 95% CI 1.04–12.3, p = 0.037) and cerebellar tumor location (OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.73–6.95, p = 0.005) were significant predictors of postsurgical major AEs (see Online resource 4). Furthermore, in a subsequent multivariate logistic regression analysis, cerebellar BM location (OR 5.46, 95% 2.31–13.8, p = 0.001), reoperation (OR 2.31, 95% 1.07–4.81, p = 0.033, see Table 3) and central region tumors (OR 3.03, 95% 1.03–8.60) were all associated with the occurrence of postoperative AEs. Looking at overall survival (OS), Kaplan–Meier curve analysis showed significant differences in OS between patients with major AEs and the ones without AEs (p = 0.044, log-rank test, see Online resource 5). Additionally, patients with higher BM load (n ≥ 5 BM) showed significantly impaired OS rates compared to patients with fewer BM (n < 5; p < 0.001 log-rank test, see Online resource 6).
Discussion
The treatment of patients with metastatic cancer is rapidly changing due to the introduction of novel therapeutic modalities, most notably targeted and immunotherapeutic systemic agents [1]. This resulted in an improved overall survival in these patients and an increasing incidence of the development of BM [4,5,6]. However, due to the changing multimodal treatment regiments in BM patients, the role and safety of microneurosurgical BM resection needs to be reassessed in the light of other treatment modalities. Technological development has advanced modern micro-neurosurgery forward with numerous technical developments to maximize intraoperative patient safety and improve the extent of resection [22,23,24,25,26]. This is reflected in the low overall rate of AE in our patient cohort with only few AEs considered as severe based on the CDG grading and without any difference between cortical, central or deep-seated lesions. Our data shows that modern microneurosurgical resection can be considered as safe also in the case of deep located or central region lesions. Infratentorial BM or non-primary surgical resections both were independent predictors of postsurgical major AEs, which has also been described in the literature before [12, 27], whereas central region location did not reach statistical significance in our cohort. Extra care in perioperative management must be applied in these situations to avoid AEs.
Patients with AEs showed decreased overall survival in our Kaplan–Meier analysis, which might be due to the subsequent delay of postoperative therapies (which is already known from glioma surgery [8]) with a corresponding effect on overall survival. Furthermore, patients with AEs did show worse functional outcome as measured by the mRS and KPS scales. Since both overall survival and functional outcome decreased after AEs, the importance of perioperative safety must be emphasized.
The reported rates of AEs might appear at first sight similar to previous reports [12, 14]. However, on the one hand modern case series are scarce [14, 28, 29], on the other hand AEs are often reported in a non-standardized or non-reproducible manner, or focused primarily on “neurosurgical relevant” AEs [13, 30] leading to a possible underestimation of total number of AEs. We adopt a broad definition of AEs as any deviation from the normal postoperative course. As suggested in the literature [4], this methodological approach is more rigorous in assuring that no AE is missed.
In general, there seems to be a continuing trend of decreasing incidence of AEs, presumably due to newly introduced technical nuances that increase operative safety. If in the ‘80s reported AE could be as high as 27% [28, 30, 31], more recent series report a AE rate of 10–12% [12], Our results, although they originate from a prospective registry (which notoriously leads to much higher reported AE rate [32]) and rely on a broader definition of AE, seem to suggest an even lower AE rate. As such, based on our data, modern microneurosurgical resection can be considered as safe in terms of the overall AE rate and severity. Recent studies of radiosurgical AEs reported an overall AE rate similar to our findings with 2.9% [11], 7% [10] and 6.6% [33] respectively. Interestingly, the definition of AEs was rather narrow and included mostly the occurrence of new neurological deficits only, without considering other forms of AEs as it is the case of the CDG grading. Still, our data suggest that in the current era, thanks to continuous improvement of microneurosurgical technique, the overall rate of AEs after microneurosurgical BM resection might be comparable to that after radiotherapy both in incidence and in severity, although our study was not designed to specifically address this issue.
In our study, anatomical infratentorial tumor location as well as reoperation were shown to be associated with postoperative AEs, which has been described previously [12, 27]. Particularly interesting appears to be the fact that the rate of AEs for supratentorial lesions did not seem to significantly differ between superficial, central and deep-seated BM. This confirms the role of microneurosurgical resection techniques [21, 34] and supports that microneurosurgical resection can be safely performed also in the case of central as well as deep-seated lesions.
We are completely aware of possible limitations of this study, which consists of its retrospective as well as single-center design and the inter-surgeon variability regarding the anatomical localization of the lesions. However, regarding the last point, each anatomical localization was confirmed by the authors of this study and thus bias should be minimized. Taken together, the AE rates presented in this study should be compared to other centers to confirm the overall low incidence of severe AE following microsurgical resection of deep or superficially seated BM.
Conclusions
Microneurosurgical resection is an excellent option in modern treatment of BM in terms of safety. Incidence of any AE, particularly severe ones, is low even in multiple, central and deep-seated lesions. Infratentorial tumor location and reoperation are associated with postoperative AEs and should warrant a closer perioperative patient monitoring.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- AE:
-
Adverse event
- ASA:
-
American Society of Anesthesiologists
- BM:
-
Brain metastases
- CDG:
-
Clavien–Dindo-Grade
- ICU:
-
Intensive care unit
- KP:
-
Karnofsky performance status
- MRI:
-
Magnetic resonance imaging
- mRS:
-
Modified Rankin Scale
- OR:
-
Odds ratio
- OS:
-
Overall survival
- SD:
-
Standard deviation
References
Wang J, Tawbi HA (2021) Emergent immunotherapy approaches for brain metastases. Neurooncol Adv 3:v43–v51
Le Rhun E, Guckenberger M, Smits M et al (2021) EANO-ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with brain metastasis from solid tumours. Ann Oncol 32:1332–1347
Vogelbaum MA, Brown PD, Messersmith H et al (2022) Treatment for brain metastases: ASCO-SNO-ASTRO guideline. J Clin Oncol 40:492–516
Brastianos PK, Carter SL, Santagata S et al (2015) Genomic characterization of brain metastases reveals branched evolution and potential therapeutic targets. Cancer Discov 5:1164–1177
Ng PR, Choi BD, Aghi MK, Nahed BV (2021) Surgical advances in the management of brain metastases. Neurooncol Adv 3:v4–v15
Zuccato JA, Zadeh G, Anders CK et al (2021) Special issue: advances in the multimodality management of brain metastases and ongoing approaches to further improve their treatment. Neurooncol Adv 3:v1–v3
Voglis S, Schaller V, Müller T et al (2022) Maximal surgical tumour load reduction in immune-checkpoint inhibitor naïve patients with melanoma brain metastases correlates with prolonged survival. Eur J Cancer 175:158–168
Weber L, Padevit L, Müller T et al (2022) Association of perioperative adverse events with subsequent therapy and overall survival in patients with WHO grade III and IV gliomas. Front Oncol 12:959072
Yaghi NK, Radu S, Nugent JG et al (2022) Optimal timing of radiotherapy following brain metastases surgery. Neurooncol Pract 9:133–141
Yamamoto M, Serizawa T, Higuchi Y et al (2017) A multi-institutional prospective observational study of stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases (JLGK0901 study update): irradiation-related complications and long-term maintenance of mini-mental state examination scores. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 99:31–40
Aiyama H, Yamamoto M, Kawabe T et al (2018) Complications after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: incidences, correlating factors, treatments and outcomes. Radiother Oncol 129:364–369
Gupta S, Dawood H, Giantini Larsen A et al (2021) Surgical and peri-operative considerations for brain metastases. Front Oncol 11:662943
Schödel P, Jünger ST, Wittersheim M et al (2020) Surgical resection of symptomatic brain metastases improves the clinical status and facilitates further treatment. Cancer Med 9:7503–7510
Winther RR, Hjermstad MJ, Skovlund E et al (2022) Surgery for brain metastases-impact of the extent of resection. Acta Neurochir 164:2773–2780
Sarnthein J, Staartjes VE, Regli L (2022) Neurosurgery outcomes and complications in a monocentric 7-year patient registry. Brain Spine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2022.100860
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria
D’Agostino GA, Langley SR (2021) Automated brain parcellation rendering and visualization in R with coldcuts. arXivLabs
Yaşargil MG (1995) Microneurosurgery in 4 volumes. Thieme, New York
Bozinov O, Burkhardt JK (2012) Intra-operative computed-tomography-like real-time three-dimensional ultrasound in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 78:5–7
Serra C, Stauffer A, Actor B et al (2012) Intraoperative high frequency ultrasound in intracerebral high-grade tumors. Ultraschall Med 33:E306–E312
Ulrich NH, Bozinov O (2010) Effect of high-intensity focused ultrasound on daily practice in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 74:12–13
Voglis S, Hiller A, Hofer AS et al (2021) Failure of diffusion-weighted imaging in intraoperative 3 Tesla MRI to identify hyperacute strokes during glioma surgery. Sci Rep 11:16137
Voglis S, Müller T, van Niftrik CHB et al (2021) Impact of additional resection on new ischemic lesions and their clinical relevance after intraoperative 3 Tesla MRI in neuro-oncological surgery. Neurosurg Rev 44:2219–2227
Steinruecke M, Pronin S, Gherman AV et al (2023) Survival and complications following supra- and infratentorial brain metastasis resection. Surgeon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2023.01.006
Paek SH, Audu PB, Sperling MR et al (2005) Reevaluation of surgery for the treatment of brain metastases: review of 208 patients with single or multiple brain metastases treated at one institution with modern neurosurgical techniques. Neurosurgery 56(1021–34):1021–1034
Stark AM, Stöhring C, Hedderich J et al (2011) Surgical treatment for brain metastases: prognostic factors and survival in 309 patients with regard to patient age. J Clin Neurosci 18:34–38
Patel AJ, Suki D, Hatiboglu MA et al (2015) Impact of surgical methodology on the complication rate and functional outcome of patients with a single brain metastasis. J Neurosurg 122:1132–1143
Sundaresan N, Galicich JH, Beattie EJ (1983) Surgical treatment of brain metastases from lung cancer. J Neurosurg 58:666–671
Upadhyaya CD, Mumaneni PV (2011) Editorial. Comparison of ICD-9-based, retrospective, and prospective assessments of perioperative complications: assessment of accuracy in reporting. J Neurosurg Spine 14:14–15
Mathieu D, Kondziolka D, Cooper PB et al (2007) Gamma knife radiosurgery for malignant melanoma brain metastases. Clin Neurosurg 54:241–247
Yaşargil MG (1987) Microneurosurgery in 4 volumes. Thieme, New York
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Zurich. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SV, LP and CS contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by SV, LP, CHBN, VK, BB, RM and CS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SV, LP and CS and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not report animal studies. The scientific workup of patient data was approved upfront by the local ethics review board (Kantonale Ethikkommission Zürich, identifier PB-2017-00093) and is registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01628406).
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Voglis, S., Padevit, L., van Niftrik, C.H.B. et al. Safety of microneurosurgical interventions for superficial and deep-seated brain metastases: single-center cohort study of 637 consecutive cases. J Neurooncol 165, 271–278 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-023-04478-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-023-04478-1