Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21516461›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2011

Delayed initiation of radiotherapy for glioblastoma: how important is it to push to the front (or the back) of the line?

Yaacov Richard Lawrence, Deborah T Blumenthal, Diana Matceyevsky, Andrew A Kanner, Felix Bokstein, Benjamin W Corn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Early Initiation of Adjuvant Therapy Following Pediatric Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Tumors.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yaacov Richard LawrenceCenter for Translational Research in Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, 52621 Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Deborah T Blumenthal
Diana Matceyevsky
Andrew A Kanner
Felix Bokstein
Benjamin W Corn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma is a malignant tumor characterized by a rapid proliferation rate. Contemporary multi-modality treatment consists of maximal surgical resection followed by radiation therapy (RT) combined with cytotoxic chemotherapy. The optimal timing of these different steps is not known. Four studies from the pre-temozolomide era, encompassing a total of 4,584 subjects, have examined the consequences of a delay between resection and starting RT. Whereas the two small single-institution studies found this delay to be detrimental, two large multi-institutional studies found delay to be either slightly beneficial or at least not harmful. Here, we critically compare the methodologies and results presented in these studies, and include a novel analysis of the combined datasets. We conclude that moderate wait periods (up to 4-6 weeks post-operatively) are safe and may be modestly beneficial. Conversely, there is no evidence to justify waiting longer than 6 weeks. Underlying radiobiological principles are discussed.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaHumansTime Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.