颅底脊索瘤内窥镜手术与开放手术的比较:国家癌症数据库综合分析

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Justin M. Soffer, Ruben Ulloa, Sonja Chen, Ryan S. Ziltzer, Vijay A. Patel, Sean P. Polster
{"title":"颅底脊索瘤内窥镜手术与开放手术的比较:国家癌症数据库综合分析","authors":"Justin M. Soffer, Ruben Ulloa, Sonja Chen, Ryan S. Ziltzer, Vijay A. Patel, Sean P. Polster","doi":"10.3171/2024.2.focus23933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\n<p>The authors of this study aimed to investigate independent prognostic factors of survival with a particular focus on comparing the safety and efficacy of endoscopic endonasal versus open approaches in the surgical management of skull base chordoma.</p>\nMETHODS\n<p>A retrospective National Cancer Database review of skull base chordoma patients was performed to capture resection cases from 2010 to 2020, evaluating overall survival (OS), early postoperative mortality, readmission rates, and hospital length of stay (LOS) between surgical approaches and the independent prognostication of death utilizing Cox multivariate regression analysis.</p>\nRESULTS\n<p>Among the 736 patients included in the cohort, 456 patients (62.0%) and 280 patients (38.0%) underwent endoscopic endonasal and open resection, respectively. These values represent a rate of change over the study period of +4.1 versus –0.14 cases per year, respectively. Gross-total resection was achieved in 32.5% of cases. A positive margin status was found in 51.8% of cases. There was no association between extent of resection and surgical approach (p = 0.257). There was no difference in OS (p = 0.562), 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 0.209 and 0.126, respectively), and 30-day readmission (p = 0.438) between the two surgical groups. The mean LOS was reduced by 2.1 days in the endoscopic cohort (p = 0.013) compared with the open approach cohort. Finally, multivariate analysis revealed a tumor size ≥ 4 cm (HR 4.03, p = 0.005) and public insurance (HR 2.76, p = 0.004) as negative predictors of survival and treatment at an academic center (HR 0.36, p = 0.043) as a positive prognosticator of survival.</p>\nCONCLUSIONS\n<p>The endoscopic endonasal approach has been increasingly utilized over time and touts noninferiority with respect to safety and efficacy with a marked improvement in LOS, which carries substantial implications for both healthcare costs and enhanced patient recovery. Future prospective studies are necessary to further delineate trends and surgical outcomes for skull base chordoma.</p>","PeriodicalId":19187,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical focus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of endoscopic endonasal versus open approaches for skull base chordoma: a comprehensive National Cancer Database analysis\",\"authors\":\"Justin M. Soffer, Ruben Ulloa, Sonja Chen, Ryan S. Ziltzer, Vijay A. Patel, Sean P. Polster\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/2024.2.focus23933\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\n<p>The authors of this study aimed to investigate independent prognostic factors of survival with a particular focus on comparing the safety and efficacy of endoscopic endonasal versus open approaches in the surgical management of skull base chordoma.</p>\\nMETHODS\\n<p>A retrospective National Cancer Database review of skull base chordoma patients was performed to capture resection cases from 2010 to 2020, evaluating overall survival (OS), early postoperative mortality, readmission rates, and hospital length of stay (LOS) between surgical approaches and the independent prognostication of death utilizing Cox multivariate regression analysis.</p>\\nRESULTS\\n<p>Among the 736 patients included in the cohort, 456 patients (62.0%) and 280 patients (38.0%) underwent endoscopic endonasal and open resection, respectively. These values represent a rate of change over the study period of +4.1 versus –0.14 cases per year, respectively. Gross-total resection was achieved in 32.5% of cases. A positive margin status was found in 51.8% of cases. There was no association between extent of resection and surgical approach (p = 0.257). There was no difference in OS (p = 0.562), 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 0.209 and 0.126, respectively), and 30-day readmission (p = 0.438) between the two surgical groups. The mean LOS was reduced by 2.1 days in the endoscopic cohort (p = 0.013) compared with the open approach cohort. Finally, multivariate analysis revealed a tumor size ≥ 4 cm (HR 4.03, p = 0.005) and public insurance (HR 2.76, p = 0.004) as negative predictors of survival and treatment at an academic center (HR 0.36, p = 0.043) as a positive prognosticator of survival.</p>\\nCONCLUSIONS\\n<p>The endoscopic endonasal approach has been increasingly utilized over time and touts noninferiority with respect to safety and efficacy with a marked improvement in LOS, which carries substantial implications for both healthcare costs and enhanced patient recovery. Future prospective studies are necessary to further delineate trends and surgical outcomes for skull base chordoma.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgical focus\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgical focus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.2.focus23933\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical focus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.2.focus23933","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

目的本研究的作者旨在研究生存率的独立预后因素,并特别关注比较内窥镜鼻内镜与开放式方法在颅底脊索瘤手术治疗中的安全性和有效性。方法对颅底脊索瘤患者的国家癌症数据库进行回顾性研究,收集2010年至2020年的切除病例,利用Cox多变量回归分析评估不同手术方法的总生存率(OS)、术后早期死亡率、再入院率和住院时间(LOS)以及死亡的独立预后因素。结果在纳入队列的 736 名患者中,分别有 456 名患者(62.0%)和 280 名患者(38.0%)接受了内镜下腔内切除术和开放性切除术。在研究期间,这些数值的变化率分别为每年+4.1例和-0.14例。32.5%的病例实现了全切。51.8%的病例边缘呈阳性。切除范围与手术方式之间没有关联(p = 0.257)。两组患者的手术时间(p = 0.562)、30 天和 90 天死亡率(p = 0.209 和 0.126)以及 30 天再入院率(p = 0.438)均无差异。与开放手术组相比,内镜组的平均住院日缩短了 2.1 天(p = 0.013)。最后,多变量分析显示,肿瘤大小≥4厘米(HR 4.03,p = 0.005)和公共保险(HR 2.76,p = 0.004)是生存率的负向预测因素,而在学术中心接受治疗(HR 0.36,p = 0.043)是生存率的正向预测因素。结论随着时间的推移,内窥镜鼻内镜方法的应用越来越广泛,其安全性和疗效均无劣势,且能明显改善患者的住院时间,这对医疗成本和提高患者恢复能力都具有重大意义。未来有必要开展前瞻性研究,进一步明确颅底脊索瘤的发展趋势和手术效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of endoscopic endonasal versus open approaches for skull base chordoma: a comprehensive National Cancer Database analysis
OBJECTIVE

The authors of this study aimed to investigate independent prognostic factors of survival with a particular focus on comparing the safety and efficacy of endoscopic endonasal versus open approaches in the surgical management of skull base chordoma.

METHODS

A retrospective National Cancer Database review of skull base chordoma patients was performed to capture resection cases from 2010 to 2020, evaluating overall survival (OS), early postoperative mortality, readmission rates, and hospital length of stay (LOS) between surgical approaches and the independent prognostication of death utilizing Cox multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 736 patients included in the cohort, 456 patients (62.0%) and 280 patients (38.0%) underwent endoscopic endonasal and open resection, respectively. These values represent a rate of change over the study period of +4.1 versus –0.14 cases per year, respectively. Gross-total resection was achieved in 32.5% of cases. A positive margin status was found in 51.8% of cases. There was no association between extent of resection and surgical approach (p = 0.257). There was no difference in OS (p = 0.562), 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 0.209 and 0.126, respectively), and 30-day readmission (p = 0.438) between the two surgical groups. The mean LOS was reduced by 2.1 days in the endoscopic cohort (p = 0.013) compared with the open approach cohort. Finally, multivariate analysis revealed a tumor size ≥ 4 cm (HR 4.03, p = 0.005) and public insurance (HR 2.76, p = 0.004) as negative predictors of survival and treatment at an academic center (HR 0.36, p = 0.043) as a positive prognosticator of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The endoscopic endonasal approach has been increasingly utilized over time and touts noninferiority with respect to safety and efficacy with a marked improvement in LOS, which carries substantial implications for both healthcare costs and enhanced patient recovery. Future prospective studies are necessary to further delineate trends and surgical outcomes for skull base chordoma.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurosurgical focus
Neurosurgical focus CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
261
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信