Surgical treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations: clinical outcomes of patients included in the registry of a pragmatic randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The Treatment of Brain Arteriovenous Malformations Study (TOBAS) is a pragmatic study that includes 2 randomized trials and registries of treated or conservatively managed patients. The authors report the results of the surgical registry.

METHODS

TOBAS patients are managed according to an algorithm that combines clinical judgment and randomized allocation. For patients considered for curative treatment, clinicians selected from surgery, endovascular therapy, or radiation therapy as the primary curative method, and whether observation was a reasonable alternative. When surgery was selected and observation was deemed unreasonable, the patient was not included in the randomized controlled trial but placed in the surgical registry. The primary outcome of the trial was mRS score > 2 at 10 years (at last follow-up for the current report). Secondary outcomes include angiographic results, perioperative serious adverse events, and permanent treatment-related complications leading to mRS score > 2.

RESULTS

From June 2014 to May 2021, 1010 patients were recruited at 30 TOBAS centers. Surgery was selected for 229/512 patients (44%) considered for curative treatment; 77 (34%) were included in the surgery versus observation randomized trial and 152 (66%) were placed in the surgical registry. Surgical registry patients had 124/152 (82%) ruptured and 28/152 (18%) unruptured arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), with the majority categorized as low-grade Spetzler-Martin grade I-II AVM (118/152 [78%]). Thirteen patients were excluded, leaving 139 patients for analysis. Embolization was performed prior to surgery in 78/139 (56%) patients. Surgical angiographic cure was obtained in 123/139 all-grade (89%, 95% CI 82%-93%) and 105/110 low-grade (95%, 95% CI 90%-98%) AVM patients. At the mean follow-up of 18.1 months, 16 patients (12%, 95% CI 7%-18%) had reached the primary safety outcome of mRS score > 2, including 11/16 who had a baseline mRS score ≥ 3 due to previous AVM rupture. Serious adverse events occurred in 29 patients (21%, 95% CI 15%-28%). Permanent treatment-related complications leading to mRS score > 2 occurred in 6/139 patients (4%, 95% CI 2%-9%), 5 (83%) of whom had complications due to preoperative embolization.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical treatment of brain AVMs in the TOBAS registry was curative in 88% of patients. The participation of more patients, surgeons, and centers in randomized trials is needed to definitively establish the role of surgery in the treatment of unruptured brain AVMs. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02098252 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The Treatment of Brain AVMs Study (TOBAS): an all-inclusive framework to integrate clinical care and research

OBJECTIVE The management of brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) remains controversial. The Treatment of Brain AVMs Study (TOBAS) was designed to manage patients with bAVMs within a clinical research framework. The objective of this study was to study trial feasibility, recruitment rates, patient allocation to the various management groups, and compliance with treatment allocation. METHODS TOBAS combines two randomized care trials (RCTs) and a registry. Designed to be all-inclusive, the study offers randomized allocation of interventional versus conservative management to patients eligible for both options (first RCT), a second RCT testing the role of preembolization as an adjunct to surgery or radiotherapy, and a registry of patients managed using clinical judgment alone. The primary outcome of the first RCT is death from any cause or disabling stroke (modified Rankin Scale score > 2) at 10 years. A pilot phase was initiated at one center to test study feasibility, record the number and characteristics of patients enrolled in the RCTs, and estimate the frequency of crossovers. RESULTS All patients discussed at the multidisciplinary bAVM committee between June 2014 and June 2016 (n = 107) were recruited into the study; 46 in the randomized trials (23 in the first RCT with 21 unruptured bAVMs, 40 in the second RCT with 17 unruptured bAVMs, and 17 in both RCTs), and 61 patients in the registry. Three patients crossed over from surgery to observation (first RCT). CONCLUSIONS Clinical research was successfully integrated with normal practice using TOBAS. Recruitment rates in a single center are encouraging. Whether the trial will provide meaningful results depends on the recruitment of a sufficient number of participating centers. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02098252 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Responses to ARUBA: a systematic review and critical analysis for the design of future arteriovenous malformation trials

OBJECTIVE The ARUBA study (A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations [AVMs]) on unruptured brain AVMs has been the object of comments and editorials. In the present study the authors aim to systematically review critiques, discuss design issues, and propose a framework for future trials. METHODS The authors performed a systematic review of the French and English literature on the ARUBA study published between January 2006 and February 2015. The electronic search, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), CINAHL, and EMBASE databases, was complemented by hand searching and cross-referencing. The comments were categorized as items related to the design, the conduct, and the analysis and interpretation of the trial. RESULTS Thirty-one articles or letters were identified. The pragmatic design, with heterogeneity of patients and lack of standardization of the treatment arm, were frequently stated concerns. The choice of outcome measures was repeatedly criticized. During the trial, low enrollment rates, selection bias, and premature interruption of enrollment were frequent comments. The short follow-up period, the lack of subgroup analyses, the lack of details on the results of the various treatments, and a contentious interpretation of results were noted at the analysis stage. A fundamental problem was the primary hypothesis testing conservative management. The authors believe that other trials are needed. Future trials could be pragmatic, test interventions stratified at the time of randomization, and look for long-term, hard clinical outcomes in a large number of patients. CONCLUSIONS In the authors' view, the ARUBA trial is a turning point in the history of brain AVM management; future trials should aim at integrating trial methodology and clinical care in the presence of uncertainty.