Development and Validation of a Supplementary Grading Scale for Outcomes of Brainstem Cavernous Malformations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgical risk assessment is intriguing for clinical decision-making of brainstem cavernous malformation (BSCM) treatment. While the BSCM grading scale, encompassing size, developmental venous anomaly, crossing axial midpoint, age, and timing of intervention, is increasingly utilized, the clinical relevance of neurological fluctuation and recurrent hemorrhage has not been incorporated. This study aimed to propose a supplementary grading scale with enhanced predictive efficacy. METHODS: Using a retrospective nationwide registry of consecutive patients with BSCMs undergoing surgery in China from March 2011 to May 2023, a new supplementary BSCM grading scale was developed from a derivative cohort of 260 patients and validated in an independent concurrent cohort of 67 patients. The primary outcome was unfavorable neurological function (modified Rankin Scale score >2) at the latest follow-up. The performance of the supplementary grading system was evaluated for discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility and further compared with its original counterpart. RESULTS: Over a follow-up of at least 6 months after surgery, the unfavorable outcomes were 31% in the overall cohort (101/327 patients). A preoperative motor deficit (odds ratio, 3.13; P =0.001), recurrent hemorrhage (odds ratio, 3.05; P <0.001), timing of intervention (odds ratio, 7.08; P <0.001), and crossing the axial midpoint (odds ratio, 2.57; P =0.006) were associated with the unfavorable outcomes and composed the initial Huashan grading variables. A supplementary BSCM grading system was subsequently developed by incorporating the Huashan grading variables into the original BSCM grading scale. The predictive capability of the supplementary scale was consistently superior to the original counterpart in either the derivative cohort (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68–0.80] for the supplementary versus 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61–0.74] for the original) or the validation cohort (0.75 [95% CI, 0.62–0.87] versus 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48–0.81]). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the neurological relevance of BSCM hemorrhage in surgical risk assessment. Via compositing preoperative motor function and recurrent hemorrhages, a supplementary grading scale may improve a dynamic risk assessment for clinical decisions in the management of BSCMs.