Several minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion techniques may be used as a treatment for spondylolisthesis to alleviate back and leg pain, improve function and provide stability to the spine. Surgeons may choose an anterolateral or posterior approach for the surgery however, there remains a lack of real-world evidence from comparative, prospective studies on effectiveness and safety with relatively large, geographically diverse samples and involving multiple surgical approaches. To test the hypothesis that anterolateral and posterior minimally invasive approaches are equally effective in treating patients with spondylolisthesis affecting one or two segments at 3-months follow-up and to report and compare patient reported outcomes and safety profiles between patients at 12-months post-surgery. Prospective, multicenter, international, observational cohort study. Patients with degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent 1- or 2-level minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. Patient reported outcomes assessing disability (ODI), back pain (VAS), leg pain (VAS) and quality of life (EuroQol 5D-3L) at 4-weeks, 3-months and 12-months follow-up; adverse events up to 12-months; and fusion status at 12-months post-surgery using X-ray and/or CT-scan. The primary study outcome is improvement in ODI score at 3-months. Eligible patients from 26 sites across Europe, Latin America and Asia were consecutively enrolled. Surgeons with experience in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedures used, according to clinical judgement, either an anterolateral (ie, ALIF, DLIF, OLIF) or posterior (MIDLF, PLIF, TLIF) approach. Mean improvement in disability (ODI) was compared between groups using ANCOVA with baseline ODI score used as a covariate. Paired t-tests were used to examine change from baseline in PRO for both surgical approaches at each timepoint after surgery. A secondary ANCOVA using a propensity score as a covariate was used to test the robustness of conclusions drawn from the between group comparison. Participants receiving an anterolateral approach (n=114) compared to those receiving a posterior approach (n=112) were younger (56.9 vs 62.0 years, p <.001), more likely to be employed (49.1% vs 25.0%, p<.001), have isthmic spondylolisthesis (38.6% vs 16.1%, p<.001) and less likely to only have central or lateral recess stenosis (44.9% vs 68.4%, p=.004). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for gender, BMI, tobacco use, duration of conservative care, grade of spondylolisthesis, or the presence of stenosis. At 3-months follow-up there was no difference in the amount of improvement in ODI between the anterolateral and posterior groups (23.2 ± 21.3 vs 25.8 ± 19.5, p=.521). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the groups on mean improvement for back- and leg-pain, disability, or quality of life until the 12-months follow-up. Fusion rates of those assessed (n=158; 70% of the sample), were equivalent between groups (anterolateral, 72/88 [81.8%] fused vs posterior, 61/70 [87.1%] fused; p=.390). Patients with degenerative lumbar disease and spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion presented statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline up to 12-months follow-up. There were no clinically relevant differences between patients operated on using an anterolateral or posterior approach.

(1) Background: This study evaluates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence, treatment, and survival of adults diagnosed with malignant brain tumors in Belgium in 2020. (2) Methods: We examined patients aged 20 and older with malignant brain tumors (2004–2020) from the Belgian Cancer Registry database, assessing incidence, WHO performance status, vital status, and treatment data. We compared 2020 incidence rates with projected rates and age-standardized rates to 2015–2019. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to assess observed survival (OS). (3) Results: In 2020, there was an 8% drop in age-specific incidence rates, particularly for those over 50. Incidence rates plunged by 37% in April 2020 during the first COVID-19 peak but partially recovered by July. For all malignant brain tumors together, the two-year OS decreased by four percentage points (p.p.) in 2020 and three p.p. in 2019, compared to that in 2015–2018. Fewer patients (−9 p.p.) with glioblastoma underwent surgery, and the proportion of patients not receiving surgery, radiotherapy, or systemic therapy increased by six percentage points in 2020. (4) Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted the diagnosis, treatment strategies, and survival of brain tumor patients in Belgium during 2020. These findings should guide policymakers in future outbreak responses, emphasizing the need to maintain or adapt (neuro)-oncological care pathways and promote informed decision making when care capacity is limited.

Objectives: Standard of care treatment for glioblastoma (GBM) involves surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy. However, variations in treatment decisions and outcomes exist across hospitals and physicians. In Belgium, where oncological care is dispersed, the impact of hospital volume on GBM outcomes remains unexplored. This nationwide study aims to analyse interhospital variability in 30-day postoperative mortality and 1-/2-year survival for GBM patients. Methods: Data collected from the Belgian Cancer Registry, identified GBM patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2019. Surgical resection and biopsy cases were identified, and hospital case load was determined. Associations between hospital volume and mortality and survival probabilities were analysed, considering patient characteristics. Statistical analysis included logistic regression for mortality and Cox proportional hazard models for survival. Results: A total of 2269 GBM patients were identified (1665 underwent resection, 662 underwent only biopsy). Thirty-day mortality rates post-resection/post-biopsy were 5.1%/11.9% (target < 3%/<5%). Rates were higher in elderly patients and those with worse WHO-performance scores. No significant difference was found based on hospital case load. Survival probabilities at 1/2 years were 48.6% and 21.3% post-resection; 22.4% and 8.3% post-biopsy. Hazard ratio for all-cause death for low vs. high volume centres was 1.618 in first 0.7 year post-resection (p < 0.0001) and 1.411 in first 0.8 year post-biopsy (p = 0.0046). Conclusion: While 30-day postoperative mortality rates were above predefined targets, no association between hospital volume and mortality was found. However, survival probabilities demonstrated benefits from treatment in higher volume centres, particularly in the initial months post-surgery. These variations highlight the need for continuous improvement in neuro-oncological practice and should stimulate reflection on the neuro-oncological care organisation in Belgium.