Table 3.
Variable | No Complications (n = 121) | TDN1 (1 to 5) (n = 110) | p-value2 |
---|---|---|---|
Age at surgery, mean (SD) | 48.5 (14.5) | 48.2 (14.6) | 0.87 |
Female, n (%) | 52 (43.0) | 45 (40.9) | 0.79 |
KPS3 at admission, median (Q1, Q3) | 90 (70, 90) | 90 (80, 90) | 0.99 |
WHO 2016 classification, n (%) | |||
Oligodendroglioma, WHO grade 2 | 18 (14.9) | 18 (16.4) | 0.86 |
Oligodendroglioma, WHO grade 3 | 17 (14.0) | 16 (14.5) | 1.00 |
Diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 2 | 17 (14.0) | 19 (17.3) | 0.59 |
Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 3 | 19 (15.7) | 20 (18.2) | 0.73 |
Diffuse astrocytic glioma, IDH-wildtype, WHO grade 2 | 30 (24.8) | 17 (15.5) | 0.10 |
Diffuse astrocytic glioma, IDH-wildtype, WHO grade 3 | 20 (16.5) | 20 (18.2) | 0.86 |
Epilepsy, n (%) | 80 (66.1) | 77 (70.0) | 0.57 |
Neurological deficit at admission, n (%) | |||
Motor | 19 (15.7) | 9 (8.2) | 0.11 |
Cognitive | 13 (10.7) | 26 (23.6) | 0.01 |
Visual | 8 (6.6) | 4 (3.6) | 0.38 |
Language | 11 (9.1) | 17 (15.5) | 0.16 |
Any neurological deficit excluding seizures | 38 (31.4) | 38 (34.5) | 0.68 |
Type of neurosurgical intervention, n (%) | |||
Tumor resection | 85 (70.2) | 99 (90.0) | <0.001 |
Main tumor location, n (%) | |||
Frontal | 61 (50.4) | 58 (52.7) | 0.79 |
Temporal | 34 (28.1) | 32 (29.1) | 0.89 |
Parietal | 11 (9.1) | 10 (9.1) | 1.00 |
Occipital | 1 (0.8) | 1 (0.9) | 1.00 |
Insular | 11 (9.1) | 7 (6.4) | 0.47 |
Basal ganglia | 3 (2.5) | 2 (1.8) | 1.00 |
Tumor located in eloquent regions (UCSF4) | 79 (65.3) | 78 (71.6) | 0.32 |
Tumor volume5, median (Q1, Q3) | 55.1 (27.6, 133.5) | 54.8 (28.1, 97.8) | 0.60 |
Change in EQ-5L 3D index value, n (%) | n = 18 | n = 27 | |
MCID6 change in EQ-5D 3L index value - IMPROVED | 5 (27.8) | 4 (14.8) | 0.45 |
MCID change in EQ-5D 3L index value - UNCHANGED | 10 (55.6) | 18 (66.7) | 0.54 |
MCID change in EQ-5D 3L index value - WORSENED | 3 (16.7) | 5 (18.5) | 1.00 |
1 Therapy-Disability-Neurology.
2 Statistical significance level was set to p < 0.05. All tests are 2 sided. Comparisons between groups were conducted with unpaired t-test, Mann–Whitney U-test or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate.
3 Karnofsky Performance Status Scale.
4 University of California San Francisco classification system.
5 Volume in cubic millimeters. One missing case due to unavailable MRI.
6 Minimum clinical important difference.