This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The utility of oral 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA)/protoporphyrin fluorescence for the resection of high-grade gliomas is well documented, but the problem of false-negative observations remains. This study compares high-grade glioma visualization with low/standard dose 5-ALA (<30 mg/kg) to high-dose 5-ALA (>40 mg/kg) to see if by using this higher dose, it is possible to reduce the rate of false-negative observations without increasing the rate of false-positive (FP) observations and therefore increase the sensitivity. METHODS: This is a prospective study of consecutive patients with radiological evidence of presumed high-grade glioma. We reviewed the data from patients who received preoperative low/standard doses and patients who received a preoperative high dose of 5-ALA. Adverse events, dose to observation time, intensity of tumor fluorescence, and results of biopsies in areas of tumor and tumor bed under deep blue light were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients with high-grade glioma received a dose >40 mg/kg (high-dose) and 9 patients received <30 mg/kg (low/standard dose). There were no serious adverse events related to 5-ALA in any subject. There was a very high sensitivity and specificity of 5-ALA for the presence of tumor in both groups. There were no FP observations (fluorescence with no tumor) in either group. The specificity and the positive predictive value were 100% in both groups. The sensitivity and the negative predictive value were 53.3% and 30.0% in the low/standard dose group and 59.5% and 31.8% in the high-dose group, respectively. CONCLUSION: High-dose oral 5-aminolevulinic/protoporphyrin fluorescence is a safe and effective aid to the intraoperative detection of high-grade gliomas with high sensitivity and specificity. False-negative observations with a high dose do not seem to be less than that with a low/standard dose. The rate of FP observations with both groups remains very low.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cozzens et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: