No abstract

Background:Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is an effective surgical option for the treatment of shunt malfunction. The role of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion is not clearly understood at this time. We compare the effects of shunt-removal/ligation, shunt externalization or external ventricular drain placement, and no treatment to the indwelling shunt at the time of ETV.Methods:We retrospectively reviewed the records of 20 consecutive patients treated at our institution for shunt malfunction with ETV. Patient data were retrospectively evaluated for the effect that the fate of the shunt plays on ETV success rates.Results:In our series of 20 patients we had an overall success rate of 70% with using ETV for shunt malfunction. Patients who had their shunts ligated at the time of surgery had a success rate of 88%, in comparison to those whom the shunt was left untouched who had a success rate of 60%, or patients who had a perioperative external ventricular drain placed the success rate was 50%.Conclusions:This series of ETV for shunt malfunction performed at a single center by a single surgeon shows a success rate similar to the published literature range of 67 to 80 percent success whether the shunt is ligated or left undisturbed. It is not necessary to ligate the in situ shunt at the time of ETV; however, there may be a trend toward an improved success rate with shunt ligation. Further studies with a greater numbers of patients are warranted.

Screening to identify patients at risk for development of hemorrhagic complications from underlying structural vascular lesions before the use of IV rtPA with computed tomography angiography should be considered.

ObjectStereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone is increasingly used in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases. Stereotactic radiosurgery used together with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) reduces intracranial failure rates, but this combination also causes greater neurocognitive toxicity and does not improve survival. Critics of SRS alone contend that deferring WBRT results in an increased need for salvage therapy and in higher costs. The authors compared the cost-effectiveness of treatment with SRS alone, SRS and WBRT (SRS+WBRT), and surgery followed by SRS (S+SRS) at the authors' institution.MethodsThe authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 289 patients in whom brain metastases were newly diagnosed and who were treated between May 2001 and December 2007. Overall survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate proportional hazards analysis (MVA) was used to identify factors associated with overall survival. Survival data were complete for 96.2% of patients, and comprehensive data on the resource use for imaging, hospitalizations, and salvage therapies were available from the medical records. Treatment costs included the cost of initial and all salvage therapies for brain metastases, hospitalizations, management of complications, and imaging. They were computed on the basis of the 2007 Medicare fee schedule from a payer perspective. Average treatment cost and average cost per month of median survival were compared. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of variations in key cost variables.ResultsNo significant differences in overall survival were observed among patients treated with SRS alone, SRS+WBRT, or S+SRS with respective median survival of 9.8, 7.4, and 10.6 months. The MVA detected a significant association of overall survival with female sex, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score, primary tumor control, absence of extracranial metastases, and number of brain metastases. Salvage therapy was required in 43% of SRS-alone and 26% of SRS+WBRT patients (p < 0.009). Despite an increased need for salvage therapy, the average cost per month of median survival was $2412 per month for SRS alone, $3220 per month for SRS+WBRT, and $4360 per month for S+SRS (p < 0.03). Compared with SRS+WBRT, SRS alone had an average incremental cost savings of $110 per patient. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the average treatment cost of SRS alone remained less than or was comparable to SRS+WBRT over a wide range of costs and treatment efficacies.ConclusionsDespite an increased need for salvage therapy, patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases treated with SRS alone have similar overall survival and receive more cost-effective care than those treated with SRS+WBRT. Compared with SRS+WBRT, initial management with SRS alone does not result in a higher average cost.

No abstract

Abstract. Most patients with rectal cancer are treated with curative-intent surgery; adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation are often used as well. A recent survey of members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) revealed considerable variation in surveillance intensity after primary treatment. We evaluated whether geographic factors may be responsible for the observed variation. Vignettes of hypothetical patients and a questionnaire based on the vignettes were mailed to the 1782 members of ASCRS. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare practice patterns, as revealed by the responses, according to US Census Regions and Divisions, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), and state-specific managed care organization (MCO) penetration rates. There was significant variation in surveillance intensity according to the US Census Region and Division in which the surgeon practiced. Non-US respondents employed CT of the abdomen and pelvis, chest radiography, and colonoscopy significantly more often than US respondents. MSA was not a significant source of variation. Surveillance patterns varied significantly by MCO penetration rate for office visits and CT of the abdomen and pelvis but not for other modalities. The US Census Region and Division in which the surgeon practices have a significant effect on surveillance intensity following completion of primary curative-intent therapy for rectal cancer patients. The MSA in which the surgeon practices does not affect surveillance intensity significantly and MCO penetration rate affects follow-up intensity minimally. All significant differences are clinically rather modest, however. These data should be useful in the design of controlled trials on this topic.

No abstract

No abstract