INTRODUCTION: The most recent local study on the incidence of histological subtypes of all brain and spinal tumours treated surgically was published in 2000. In view of the outdated data, we investigated the presenting characteristics, histological subtypes and outcomes of adult patients who underwent surgery for brain or spinal tumours at our institution. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective review of 501 patients who underwent surgery for brain or spinal tumours from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. The inclusion criteria were (a) patients who had a brain or spinal tumour that was histologically verified and (b) patients who were aged 18 years and above at the time of surgery. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-five patients (86.8%) had brain tumours and 66 patients (13.2%) had spinal tumours. Patients with brain tumours frequently presented with cranial nerve palsy, headache and weakness, while patients with spinal tumours frequently presented with weakness, numbness and back pain. Overall, the most common histological types of brain and spinal tumours were metastases, meningiomas and tumours of the sellar region. The most common complications after surgery were cerebrospinal fluid leak, diabetes insipidus and urinary tract infection. In addition, 15.2% of the brain tumours and 13.6% of the spinal tumours recurred, while 25.7% of patients with brain tumours and 18.2% of patients with spinal tumours died. High-grade gliomas and metastases had the poorest survival and highest recurrence rates. CONCLUSION This study serves as a comprehensive update of the epidemiology of brain and spinal tumours and could help guide further studies on brain and spinal tumours.
Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Female ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Adult ; Aged ; Central Nervous System Neoplasms/pathology* ; Brain Neoplasms/pathology* ; Treatment Outcome ; Postoperative Complications ; Young Adult ; Spinal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Aged, 80 and over ; Adolescent

INTRODUCTION: We report outcomes of patients with oesophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) plus surgery or definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT) at our institution. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent chemoRT from 2005 to 2017. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicities. RESULTS: We identified 96 patients with median age of 64 years and squamous cell carcinoma in 82.3%. Twenty-nine patients (30.2%) received NACRT plus surgery, 67 patients (69.8%) received definitive chemoRT. Median follow-up was 13.5 months. The 3/5-year OS were 26.4%/13.4%, and 59.6%/51.6% in the definitive chemoRT and NACRT plus surgery groups, respectively. The 3/5-year DFS were 19.3%/12.3%, and 55.7%/37.2% in the definitive chemoRT and NACRT plus surgery groups, respectively. NACRT plus surgery significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-0.72, CONCLUSION NACRT plus surgery improved OS and DFS. However, in view of treatment-related complications, careful selection of patients is warranted. With the predominant histology of our cohort being squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), our results may be more relevant for those with SCC.
Chemoradiotherapy ; Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Neoplasm Staging ; Retrospective Studies

Introduction: Positive oral contrast is no longer deemed necessary for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scans. Studies have shown water to be an equally effective oral contrast agent. However, to our knowledge no study has compared effectiveness between gastrografin and water in the same patient, which will provide a more objective evaluation of the two oral contrast agents. We aim to make a head-to-head comparison of water as neutral oral contrast (OC) against gastrografin as positive OC for abdominopelvic CT scans in the same patient. Methods: A retrospective review of 206 abdominopelvic CT scans of 103 patients was performed. The scans were reviewed in consensus by two blinded radiologists. The ability to visualise each abdominopelvic organ, contrastassociated artefacts and small bowel wall delineation, was qualitatively scored on a 5-point scale. Each patient had two sets of scores, one with water and another with gastrografin as OC. Paired scores from the two OCs were evaluated by Wilcoxon signed rank test to determine any significant difference in performance between the two OCs for visualisation of abdominopelvic anatomy on CT. Results: There was significantly better delineation of duodenal wall (p<0.001) and overall visualisation of the duodenum (p=0.011) using water as OC compared to gastrografin. No statistically significant differences were demonstrated between water and gastrografin for visualisation of the rest of the abdominopelvic organs, walldelineation of the rest small bowel and contrast-associated artefacts. Conclusions: Water can be used in place of gastrografin as oral contrast in abdominopelvic CT without compromising visualization of abdominopelvic organs.