Intraoperative low-field magnetic resonance imaging-guided tumor resection in glioma surgery: Pros and cons

Discriminating Glioblastoma from Peritumoral Tissue by a Nanohole Array-Based Optical and Label-Free Biosensor

In glioblastoma (GBM) patients, maximal safe resection remains a challenge today due to its invasiveness and diffuse parenchymal infiltration. In this context, plasmonic biosensors could potentially help to discriminate tumor tissue from peritumoral parenchyma based on differences in their optical properties. A nanostructured gold biosensor was used ex vivo to identify tumor tissue in a prospective series of 35 GBM patients who underwent surgical treatment. For each patient, two paired samples, tumor and peritumoral tissue, were extracted. Then, the imprint left by each sample on the surface of the biosensor was individually analyzed, obtaining the difference between their refractive indices. The tumor and non-tumor origins of each tissue were assessed by histopathological analysis. The refractive index (RI) values obtained by analyzing the imprint of the tissue were significantly lower (p = 0.0047) in the peritumoral samples (1.341, Interquartile Range (IQR) 1.339-1.349) compared with the tumor samples (1.350, IQR 1.344-1.363). The ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve showed the capacity of the biosensor to discriminate between both tissues (area under the curve, 0.8779, p < 0.0001). The Youden index provided an optimal RI cut-off point of 0.003. The sensitivity and specificity of the biosensor were 81% and 80%, respectively. Overall, the plasmonic-based nanostructured biosensor is a label-free system with the potential to be used for real-time intraoperative discrimination between tumor and peritumoral tissue in patients with GBM.

The Current Status in Intraoperative Image-Guided Neurosurgery Associated with Progressive Operating Rooms: A Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Shinshu University Hospital has advanced operating rooms including a mobile computed tomography (mCT) room, Smart Cyber Operating Theater (SCOT) with intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging, hybrid operating room (hOR) with intraoperative image-guided surgery, and conventional operating rooms. We investigated the characteristics of cases assigned to each operating room.

METHODS

Five hundred forty neurosurgery cases from January 2018 to April 2021 were analyzed. We analyzed the selection of operating room according to pathology, surgical device requirement, and urgency, and we examined associations between operating room characteristics and these factors.

RESULTS

Neurological surgeries were performed in an mCT room, an hOR, a SCOT, and a conventional operating room in 333 (61.7%), 64 (11.9%), 49 (9.1%), and 94 (17.4%) cases, respectively. mCT rooms were more frequently selected than other rooms for vascular/extra-axial tumors, which have a lower need for intraoperative image guidance. Spinal surgeries with segment diagnosis or intraoperative bone removal tended to be performed in the hOR. The rate of SCOT use tended to be higher for intra-axial tumors with poorly circumscribed borders than for vascular/extra-axial tumors. Endoscopic procedures were more frequently performed in the SCOT and mCT rooms than in hORs and conventional operating rooms. Emergency surgeries were often performed in the conventional operating rooms, even in cases where SCOT and hOR seemed suitable.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative image-guided surgeries were performed according to the characteristics of each operating room best suited for various diseases and operative methods. Further research is needed to prove whether operating room selection improves neurosurgical outcomes.

Is intraoperative ultrasound more efficient than magnetic resonance in neurosurgical oncology? An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

Intraoperative imaging is a chief asset in neurosurgical oncology, it improves the extent of resection and postoperative outcomes. Imaging devices have evolved considerably, in particular ultrasound (iUS) and magnetic resonance (iMR). Although iUS is regarded as a more economically convenient and yet effective asset, no formal comparison between the efficiency of iUS and iMR in neurosurgical oncology has been performed.

Methods

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two single-center prospectively collected surgical cohorts, classified according to the intraoperative imaging used. iMR (2013-2016) and iUS (2021-2022) groups comprised low- and high-grade gliomas, with a maximal safe resection intention. Units of health gain were gross total resection and equal or increased Karnofsky performance status. Surgical and health costs were considered for analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for the two intervention alternatives. The cost-utility graphic and the evolution of surgical duration with the gained experience were also analyzed.

Results

50 patients followed an iMR-assisted operation, while 17 underwent an iUS-guided surgery. Gross total resection was achieved in 70% with iMR and in 60% with iUS. Median postoperative Karnofsky was similar in both group (KPS 90). Health costs were € 3,220 higher with iMR, and so were surgical-related costs (€ 1,976 higher). The ICER was € 322 per complete resection obtained with iMR, and € 644 per KPS gained or maintained with iMR. When only surgical-related costs were analyzed, ICER was € 198 per complete resection with iMR and € 395 per KPS gained or maintained.

Conclusion

This is an unprecedented but preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of the two most common intraoperative imaging devices in neurosurgical oncology. iMR, although being costlier and time-consuming, seems cost-effective in terms of complete resection rates and postoperative performance status. However, the differences between both techniques are small. Possibly, iMR and iUS are complementary aids during the resection: iUS real-time images assist while advancing towards the tumor limits, informing about the distance to relevant landmarks and correcting neuronavigation inaccuracy due to brain shift. Yet, at the end of resection, it is the iMR that reliably corroborates whether residual tumor remains.