Value of biomarkers in the prediction of shunt responsivity in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Miroslav Cihlo, Pavel Trávníček, Alena Tichá, Radomír Hyšpler, Marta Kalousová, Svatopluk Řehák, Karel Zadrobílek, Lucie Kukrálová, Pavel Póczoš, Jan Pospíšil, Pavel Dostál, Vlasta Dostálová
{"title":"Value of biomarkers in the prediction of shunt responsivity in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus.","authors":"Miroslav Cihlo, Pavel Trávníček, Alena Tichá, Radomír Hyšpler, Marta Kalousová, Svatopluk Řehák, Karel Zadrobílek, Lucie Kukrálová, Pavel Póczoš, Jan Pospíšil, Pavel Dostál, Vlasta Dostálová","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03581-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Preoperative differentiation between responders and non-responders to ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunting in the treatment of normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) remains a significant challenge. Identifying biomarkers in presurgical assessment represents a promising approach to reducing the need for invasive cerebrospinal fluid CSF testing. In this prospective observational study, thirty adult patients were classified into Group A (responders to VP shunting) and Group B (non-responders) based on their responsiveness to invasive CSF testing. The overall clinical condition and Idiopathic NPH (iNPH) scale were assessed at baseline. Additionally, biomarker levels were compared between the two groups. Elevated levels of Neurofilament Light Chain (NfL) and Neurofilament Heavy Chain (NfH) in CSF and a reduced level of beta-amyloid Aβ42 were observed. No significant differences in biomarker levels were found between groups. Individual biomarkers demonstrated only poor predictive value (AUC = 0.37-0.53). Clinical factors were stronger predictors (AUC = 0.642-0.669), with no improvement when combined with all examined biomarkers (AUC = 0.428-0.431). No single biomarker reliably predicted confirmed postoperative shunt responsiveness among patients who underwent VP shunt placement and demonstrated clinical improvement. Clinical factors were stronger predictors, suggesting that patient history and clinical assessment (e.g., the iNPH scale) provide more reliable diagnostic information. Notably, combining biomarkers with clinical factors did not improve predictive accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"474"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130159/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03581-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Preoperative differentiation between responders and non-responders to ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunting in the treatment of normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) remains a significant challenge. Identifying biomarkers in presurgical assessment represents a promising approach to reducing the need for invasive cerebrospinal fluid CSF testing. In this prospective observational study, thirty adult patients were classified into Group A (responders to VP shunting) and Group B (non-responders) based on their responsiveness to invasive CSF testing. The overall clinical condition and Idiopathic NPH (iNPH) scale were assessed at baseline. Additionally, biomarker levels were compared between the two groups. Elevated levels of Neurofilament Light Chain (NfL) and Neurofilament Heavy Chain (NfH) in CSF and a reduced level of beta-amyloid Aβ42 were observed. No significant differences in biomarker levels were found between groups. Individual biomarkers demonstrated only poor predictive value (AUC = 0.37-0.53). Clinical factors were stronger predictors (AUC = 0.642-0.669), with no improvement when combined with all examined biomarkers (AUC = 0.428-0.431). No single biomarker reliably predicted confirmed postoperative shunt responsiveness among patients who underwent VP shunt placement and demonstrated clinical improvement. Clinical factors were stronger predictors, suggesting that patient history and clinical assessment (e.g., the iNPH scale) provide more reliable diagnostic information. Notably, combining biomarkers with clinical factors did not improve predictive accuracy.

生物标志物在预测常压脑积水患者分流反应性中的价值。
在脑室-腹膜(VP)分流治疗中常压脑积水(NPH)的术前区分反应者和无反应者仍然是一个重大挑战。在手术前评估中识别生物标志物是减少侵入性脑脊液CSF检测需求的一种有希望的方法。在这项前瞻性观察性研究中,30名成年患者根据其对侵入性脑脊液测试的反应性分为A组(VP分流反应者)和B组(无反应者)。在基线时评估总体临床状况和特发性NPH (iNPH)量表。此外,比较两组之间的生物标志物水平。脑脊液中神经丝轻链(NfL)和神经丝重链(NfH)水平升高,β -淀粉样蛋白a- β42水平降低。各组间生物标志物水平无显著差异。个体生物标志物仅显示较差的预测价值(AUC = 0.37-0.53)。临床因素是较强的预测因子(AUC = 0.642-0.669),与所有检测的生物标志物联合使用时无改善(AUC = 0.428-0.431)。没有单一的生物标志物可靠地预测接受VP分流放置的患者术后分流反应性并显示临床改善。临床因素是更强的预测因子,这表明患者病史和临床评估(如iNPH量表)提供了更可靠的诊断信息。值得注意的是,将生物标志物与临床因素结合并没有提高预测的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信