Person:
Lamba, Nayan

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Lamba

First Name

Nayan

Name

Lamba, Nayan
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.3409bb77-69e9-441b-aef4-6d35afe0a5a5

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    The history of head transplantation: a review
    (Springer Vienna, 2016) Lamba, Nayan; Holsgrove, Daniel; Broekman, Marike L.
    Background: Since the turn of the last century, the prospect of head transplantation has captured the imagination of scientists and the general public. Recently, head transplant has regained attention in popular media, as neurosurgeons have proposed performing this procedure in 2017. Given the potential impact of such a procedure, we were interested in learning the history of the technical hurdles that need to be overcome, and determine if it is even technically possible to perform such a procedure on humans today. Method We conducted a historical review of available literature on the technical challenges and developments of head transplantation. The many social, psychological, ethical, religious, cultural, and legal questions of head transplantation were beyond the scope of this review. Results: Our historical review identified the following important technical considerations related to performing a head transplant: maintenance of blood flow to an isolated brain via vessel anastomosis; availability of immunosuppressive agents; spinal anastomosis and fusion following cord transfection; pain control in the recipient. Several animal studies have demonstrated success in maintaining recipient cerebral perfusion and achieving immunosuppression. However, there is currently sparse evidence in favor of successful spinal anastomosis and fusion after transection. While recent publications by an Italian group offer novel approaches to this challenge, research on this topic has been sparse and hinges on procedures performed in animal models in the 1970s. How transferrable these older methods are to the human nervous system is unclear and warrants further exploration. Conclusions: Our review identified several important considerations related to performing a viable head transplantation. Besides the technical challenges that remain, there are important ethical issues to consider, such as exploitation of vulnerable patients and informed consent. Thus, besides the remaining technical challenges, these ethical issues will also need to be addressed before moving these studies to the clinic.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy after intracranial metastasis resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (BioMed Central, 2017) Lamba, Nayan; Muskens, Ivo S.; DiRisio, Aislyn C.; Meijer, Louise; Briceno, Vanessa; Edrees, Heba; Aslam, Bilal; Minhas, Sadia; Verhoeff, Joost J. C.; Kleynen, Catharina E.; Smith, Timothy; Mekary, Rania A.; Broekman, Marike L.
    Background: In patients with one to three brain metastases who undergo resection, options for post-operative treatments include whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) of the resection cavity. In this meta-analysis, we sought to compare the efficacy of each post-operative radiation modality with respect to tumor recurrence and survival. Methods: Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched through June 2016 for cohort studies reporting outcomes of SRS or WBRT after metastasis resection. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using fixed-effect and random-effect models for local recurrence, distant recurrence, and overall survival. Results: Eight retrospective cohort studies with 646 patients (238 with SRS versus 408 with WBRT) were included in the analysis. Comparing SRS to WBRT, the overall crude risk ratio using the fixed-effect model was 0.59 for local recurrence (95%-CI: 0.32–1.09, I2: 3.35%, P-heterogeneity = 0.36, 3 studies), 1.09 for distant recurrence (95%-CI: 0.74–1.60, I2: 50.5%, P-heterogeneity = 0.13; 3 studies), and 2.99 for leptomeningeal disease (95% CI 1.55–5.76; I2: 14.4% p-heterogeneity: 0.28; 2 studies). For the same comparison, the risk ratio for median overall survival was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.41–0.54; I2: 79.1%, P-heterogeneity < 0.01; 4 studies) in a fixed-effect model, but was no longer significant (0.63; 95%-CI: 0.40–1.00) in a random-effect model. SRS was associated with a lower risk of leukoencephalopathy (RR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07–0.33, 1 study), yet with a higher risk of radiation-necrosis (RR: 19.4, 95% CI: 1.21–310, 1 study). Conclusion: Based on retrospective cohort studies, the results of this study suggest that SRS of the resection cavity may offer comparable survival and similar local and distant control as adjuvant WBRT, yet may be associated with a higher risk for developing leptomeningeal disease. Future research on SRS should focus on achieving a better understanding of the various factors that may favor SRS over WBRT.