Highlights
- •Two score systems may drive the aneurysms management: one estimates the growth/rupture risk, the other provides recommendation to treat.
- •There is still a poor validation about the reliability of these score families and little is known about their agreement.
- •When retrospectively applied, JTS outperforms UIATS in correctly recommending treatment in a higher percentage of SAH patients.
- •UIATS and JTS agrees more with UCAS than PHASES predictions.
- •Around 50% of patients with unclear or conservative UIATS/JTS recommendations are classified as at higher growth risk by ELAPSS and JGS.
Abstract
Background
Two score families were introduced to help clinicians about the decision-making regarding
intracranial aneurysms management. The first family estimates the growth/rupture risk
(GRS), whereas the second provides straightforward recommendation (RS) for treatment
decisions. However, both remain poorly validated and little is known about their agreement.
In this paper, we performed a retrospective concordance analysis among the two scores
families through their application to a multicenter cohort of SAH patients.
Methods
Demographical, clinical and radiological data were extracted in conformance with the
variables included in PHASES, UCAS, ELAPSS, Juvela’s growth score (JGS), UIATS and
Juvela’s treatment score (JTS). Individual patients’ score were calculated for both
score families, and pooled data were then analyzed.
Results
Overall, 146 patients were included. True positive rates were: 51.4% for PHASES; 71.9%
for UCAS; between 60.3% and 90.4% for JTS; and between 27.4% and 68.5% for UIATS.
In patients showing UIATS unclear recommendation and low JTS score (RS), UCAS outperformed
PHASES (GRS) in identifying aneurysms at higher risk of rupture. Same results we found
for patients with conservative UIATS recommendation and very low JTS score. Forty-to-sixty
percent of aneurysms with unclear or conservative RS recommendation would have been
identified as at high risk with GRS.
Conclusions
Retrospectively applied, JTS appeared outperforming UIATS in correctly recommending
treatment in a higher percentage of patients. UIATS and JTS appeared agreeing more
with UCAS than PHASES predictions. Around 50% of patients with unclear or conservative
UIATS/JTS recommendations were been classified as at higher growth risk by ELAPSS
and JGS.
Abbreviations:
ACom (anterior communicating artery), ACA (anterior cerebral arter), BA (basilar artery), CT (computed tomography), DSA (digital subtraction angiography), ELAPSS (earlier subarachnoid hemorrhage, location of the aneurysm, age, population, size of the aneurysm, shape of the aneurysm score), FN (false negative), GRS (growth/rupture risk), ICA (internal carotid artery), IRB (institutional review board), JGS (Juvela growth score, JTS, Juvela treatment score), MCA (middle cerebral artery), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PCom (posterior communicating artery), PHASES (population, hypertension, age, size of the aneurysm, earlier SAH from any aneurysm, site of the aneurysm score), PICA (posterior inferior cerebellar artery), RS (recommendation score), rIAS (ruptured intracranial aneurysms), STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology), SAH (subarachnoid hemorrhage), TP (true positive), uIAs (unruptured intracranial aneurysms), UIATS (unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score), UCAS (unruptured cerebral aneurysm study score), VA (vertebral artery)Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical NeuroscienceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: epidemiology, natural history, management options, and familial screening.Lancet Neurol. 2014; 13: 393-404https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70015-8
- Prevalence of unruptured intracranial aneurysms, with emphasis on sex, age, comorbidity, country, and time period: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lancet Neurol. 2011; 10: 626-636https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70109-0
Brisman JL. Cerebral Aneurysms. N Engl j Med 2006:12.
- Declining Admission and Mortality Rates for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Canada Between 2004 and 2015.Stroke. 2019; 50: 181-184https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022332
- Intracranial aneurysms.N Engl J Med. 1997; 13
The UCAS Japan Investigators. The Natural Course of Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysms in a Japanese Cohort. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2474–82. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113260.
- Development of the PHASES score for prediction of risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms: a pooled analysis of six prospective cohort studies.Lancet Neurol. 2014; 13: 59-66https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70263-1
- Prediction model for 3-year rupture risk of unruptured cerebral aneurysms in Japanese patients: Cerebral Aneurysm Rupture Risk.Ann Neurol. 2015; 77: 1050-1059https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24400
- Scoring of Growth of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms.JCM. 2020; 9: 3339https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103339
- The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: A multidisciplinary consensus.Neurology. 2015; 85: 881-889https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001891
- Treatment Scoring of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms.Stroke. 2019; 50: 2344-2350https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025599
- Is the unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score (UIATS) sensitive enough to detect aneurysms at risk of rupture?.Neurosurg Rev. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01246-x
- Application of PHASES and ELAPSS scores to ruptured cerebral aneurysms: how many would have been conservatively managed?.J Neurosurg Sci. 2018; https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.18.04498-3
- The PHASES score: To treat or not to treat? Retrospective evaluation of the risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.J Neuroradiol. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurad.2019.06.003
- Retrospective application of risk scores to ruptured intracranial aneurysms: would they have predicted the risk of bleeding?.Neurosurg Rev. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01352-w
- Retrospective Application of UIATS Recommendations to a Multicenter Cohort of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: How It Would Have Oriented the Treatment Choices?.World Neurosurg. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.12.041
- Management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: correlation of UIATS, ELAPSS, and PHASES with referral center practice.Neurosurg Rev. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01356-6
- Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.BMJ. 2007; 335: 806-808https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD
- ELAPSS score for prediction of risk of growth of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.Neurology. 2017; 88: 1600-1606https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003865
- PHASES Score for the Management of Intracranial Aneurysm: A Cross-Sectional Population-Based Retrospective Study.Stroke. 2017; 48: 2105-2112https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.017391
Hackenberg KAM, Hänggi D, Etminan N. Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms n.d.:8.
- Management of unruptured incidentally found intracranial saccular aneurysms.Neurosurg Rev. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01407-y
- The application of the unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a retrospective, single-center study.Neurosurg Rev. 2018; 41: 1021-1028https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-018-0944-2
- Validation of the unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: comparison with real-world cerebrovascular practice.J Neurosurg. 2018; 129: 100-106https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.4.JNS17548
- Management of incidental aneurysms: comparison of single Centre multi-disciplinary team decision making with the unruptured incidental aneurysm treatment score.Br J Neurosurg. 2018; 32: 536-540https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2018.1468019
- Inquiring the real-world clinical performance of the Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm Treatment Score (UIATS).Neurosurg Rev. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01355-7
- Inquiring the real-world clinical performance of the unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score (UIATS).Neurosurg Rev. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01354-8
- Application of unruptured aneurysm scoring systems to a cohort of ruptured aneurysms: are we underestimating rupture risk?.Neurosurg Rev. 2021; 44: 3487-3498https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-021-01523-3
Stumpo V, Staartjes VE, Esposito G, Serra C, Regli L, Olivi A, et al. Machine Learning and Intracranial Aneurysms: From Detection to Outcome Prediction. In: Staartjes VE, Regli L, Serra C, editors. Machine Learning in Clinical Neuroscience, vol. 134, Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022, p. 319–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85292-4_36.
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
March 21,
2022
Received:
January 2,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
