Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24484232›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurosurgery2014

An extent of resection threshold for recurrent glioblastoma and its risk for neurological morbidity.

Mark E Oppenlander, Andrew B Wolf, Laura A Snyder, Robert Bina, Jeffrey R Wilson, Stephen W Coons, Lynn S Ashby, David Brachman, Peter Nakaji, Randall W Porter and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurosurgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 264 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Post-recurrence management of malignant glial brain tumors: therapeutic strategies, evidence and limitations, palliative care, terminal sedation, and end-of-life considerations.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mark E OppenlanderDivision of Neurological Surgery.
Andrew B Wolf
Laura A Snyder
Robert Bina
Jeffrey R Wilson
Stephen W Coons
Lynn S Ashby
David Brachman
Peter Nakaji
Randall W Porter
Kris A Smith
Robert F Spetzler
Nader Sanai
Neurological Surgery · USBarrow Brain and Spine · USArizona State University · USSt. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectDespite improvements in the medical and surgical management of patients with glioblastoma, tumor recurrence remains inevitable. For recurrent glioblastoma, however, the clinical value of a second resection remains uncertain. Specifically, what proportion of contrast-enhancing recurrent glioblastoma tissue must be removed to improve overall survival and what is the neurological cost of incremental resection beyond this threshold?

methodsThe authors identified 170 consecutive patients with recurrent supratentorial glioblastomas treated at the Barrow Neurological Institute from 2001 to 2011. All patients previously had a de novo glioblastoma and following their initial resection received standard temozolomide and fractionated radiotherapy.

resultsThe mean clinical follow-up was 22.6 months and no patient was lost to follow-up. At the time of recurrence, the median preoperative tumor volume was 26.1 cm(3). Following re-resection, median postoperative tumor volume was 3.1 cm(3), equating to an 87.4% extent of resection (EOR). The median overall survival was 19.0 months, with a median progression-free survival following re-resection of 5.2 months. Using Cox proportional hazards analysis, the variables of age, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score, and EOR were predictive of survival following repeat resection (p = 0.0001). Interestingly, a significant survival advantage was noted with as little as 80% EOR. Recursive partitioning analysis validated these findings and provided additional risk stratification at the highest levels of EOR. Overall, at 7 days after surgery, a deterioration in the NIH stroke scale score by 1 point or more was observed in 39.1% of patients with EOR ≥ 80% as compared with 16.7% for those with EOR < 80% (p = 0.0049). This disparity in neurological morbidity, however, did not endure beyond 30 days postoperatively (p = 0.1279).

conclusionsFor recurrent glioblastomas, an improvement in overall survival can be attained beyond an 80% EOR. This survival benefit must be balanced against the risk of neurological morbidity, which does increase with more aggressive cytoreduction, but only in the early postoperative period. Interestingly, this putative EOR threshold closely approximates that reported for newly diagnosed glioblastomas, suggesting that for a subset of patients, the survival benefit of microsurgical resection does not diminish despite biological progression.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleGlioblastomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeurosurgical ProceduresPrognosisReoperationTreatment OutcomeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24484232
OpenAlexW1587922612

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.