Lee, Young

Abstract Cancer occurs in ∼1 per 1000 pregnancies; thousands of patients may require radiation procedures for diagnosis and treatment each year in the United States alone. This rare but high-risk scenario, coupled with fear of radiation, has created ambiguity in the ideal management of pregnant patients. Without a comprehensive guide for the use of radiation in imaging and treatment for pregnant cancer patients, it is difficult for providers to offer optimal patient-centered care without introducing disparities. The goal of this paper is to provide guidance on the use of radiation for screening, diagnosis, staging, and treatment of cancer, while highlighting gaps in existing knowledge and guidelines. The intention is that physicians, medical physicists, and patients could use this document as a resource for shared decision-making, ensuring safe and effective practice. A team of physicians and medical physicists with expertise in imaging, radiotherapy, and maternal fetal medicine was assembled, along with a patient advocate and lawyer. Existing guidelines and recent literature were reviewed. Authors also drew from their experience where published guidance was lacking. The resulting document discusses best practice to guide use of radiation for cancer, as well as patient-centered care management and legal considerations. Overall, it is possible to safely and effectively deliver radiation to pregnant patients in numerous circumstances. Use of radiation or other modalities should be discussed through shared decision-making with the physician and patient, contextualizing the maternal and fetal risk from treatments. Healthcare providers should support wide access to reproductive healthcare to allow equitable, evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare.

Background Perirolandic motor area gliomas present invasive eloquent region tumors within the precentral gyrus that are difficult to resect without causing neurologic deficits. Study Aims This study evaluates the role of awake craniotomy and motor mapping on neurologic outcome and extent of resection (EOR) of tumor in the perirolandic motor region. It also analyzes preoperative risk factors for intraoperative seizures. Methods We evaluated 57 patients who underwent an awake craniotomy for a perirolandic motor area eloquent region glioma. Patients who had positive mapping (PM) or intraoperative identification of motor regions in the cortex using direct cortical stimulation were compared with patients with no positive motor mapping following direct cortical stimulation and negative mapping (NM). Preoperative risks, intraoperative seizures, perioperative outcomes, tumor characteristics, and EOR were also compared. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the predictors for intraoperative seizures in this patient cohort. Results Overall, 33 patients were in the PM cohort; 24 were in the NM cohort. Our study showed an 8.8% incidence of intraoperative seizures during cortical and subcortical mapping for awake craniotomies in the perirolandic motor area, none of which aborted the case. PM patients had significantly more intraoperative and postoperative seizures (15.5% and 30.3%, respectively) compared with the NM patients (0% and 8.3%, respectively; p = 0.046 and 0.044). New transient postoperative motor deficits were found more often in the PM group (51.5%) versus the NM group (12.5%; p = 0.002). A univariate logistic regression showed that PM (odds ratio [OR]: 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01–1.34; p = 0.035) and preoperative tumor volume (OR: 0.998; 95% CI, 0.996–0.999; p = 0.049) were significant predictors for intraoperative seizures in patients with perirolandic gliomas. Conclusion Awake craniotomies in the perirolandic motor region can be safely performed with a similar incidence of intraoperative seizures as reported for the language cortex. PM in this region may increase the likelihood of perioperative seizures or motor deficits compared with NM. Craniotomies that minimize cortical exposure for perirolandic gliomas that may not localize motor regions can still allow for extensive tumor resection with a good postoperative outcome.