Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T11:38:35.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

P.161 Management of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: An inter-observer variability study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2022

M Patel
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)*
K Au
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
V Mehta
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
R Broad
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
MM Chow
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
A Hockley
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
Z Kaderali
Affiliation:
(Winnipeg)
E Magro
Affiliation:
(Brest)
A Nataraj
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
F Scholtes
Affiliation:
(Liège)
M Chagnon
Affiliation:
(Montreal)
G Gevry
Affiliation:
(Montreal)
J Raymond
Affiliation:
(Montreal)
TE Darsaut
Affiliation:
(Edmonton)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Background: A significant proportion of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients are considered for repeat resection, but evidence regarding best management remains elusive. Methods: An electronic portfolio of MR images of 37 cases of pathologically confirmed recurrent GBM with an accompanying clinical vignette was constructed. Surgical responders from various countries, training backgrounds, and years’ experience were asked for each case to select: their chosen management (repeat surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, or conservative), confidence in recommended management, and whether they would include the patient in a randomized trial that gave a 50% chance of re-operation. Responses were evaluated with kappa statistics and values interpreted according to Landis and Koch (0–0.2, slight; 0.21–0.4, fair; 0.41–0.6, moderate; 0.61–0.8, substantial; 0.81-1.0 perfect agreement). Results: 26 surgeons responded to the survey. Agreement regarding best management of recurrent GBM was slight, even when management options were dichotomized (repeat surgery vs. all others) (k=0.198 (95%CI 0.133-0.276). Country of practice, years’ experience, and training background did not improve agreement. Responders were willing to include more than 70% of patients in a randomized trial. Conclusions: Only slight agreement exists regarding the question of re-operation for patients with recurrent GBM. This supports the need for a randomized controlled trial.

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation