Abstract
Objectives The purpose of this study is to report health utility scores for patients with olfactory
groove meningiomas (OGM) treated with either the standard transcranial approach, or
the expanded endonasal endoscopic approach.
Design The time trade-off technique was used to derive health utility scores.
Setting Healthy individuals without skull base tumors were surveyed.
Main Outcome Measures Participants reviewed and rated scenarios describing treatment (endoscopic, open,
stereotactic radiation, watchful waiting), remission, recurrence, and complications
associated with the management of OGMs.
Results There were 51 participants. The endoscopic approach was associated with higher utility
scores compared with an open craniotomy approach (0.88 vs. 0.74; p < 0.001) and watchful waiting (0.88 vs.0.74; p = 0.002). If recurrence occurred, revision endoscopic resection continued to have
a higher utility score compared with revision open craniotomy (0.68; p = 0.008). On multivariate analysis, older individuals were more likely to opt for
watchful waiting (p = 0.001), whereas participants from higher income brackets were more likely to rate
stereotactic radiosurgery with higher utility scores (p = 0.017).
Conclusion The endoscopic approach was associated with higher utility scores than craniotomy
for primary and revision cases. The present utilities can be used for future cost-utility
analyses.
Keywords
health utility scores - time trade-off - olfactory groove meningioma - expanded endonasal
approach - quality of life
