ArticlePloS one2017
Modification and optimization of an established prognostic score after re-irradiation of recurrent glioma.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Congress of Neurological Surgeons systematic review and evidence-based guidelines update on the role of radiation therapy in the management of progressive and recurrent glioblastoma in adults.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Validation of Combs prognostic scoring system in Indian recurrent glioma patients treated with re-radiation.Radiation oncology journal · 2024Article
- Advances in the field of developing biomarkers for re-irradiation: a how-to guide to small, powerful data sets and artificial intelligence.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2024Article
- Re-irradiation for recurrent high-grade glioma: an analysis of prognostic factors for survival and predictors of radiation necrosis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Impact of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy on activity of daily living and performance status in progressive/recurrent glioblastoma: a retrospective study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Article
- Comparison of carbon ion and photon reirradiation for recurrent glioblastoma.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2022Article
- A multi-center prospective study of re-irradiation with bevacizumab and temozolomide in patients with bevacizumab refractory recurrent high-grade gliomas.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2021Article
- Re-irradiation for high-grade gliomas: Has anything changed?World journal of clinical oncology · 2021Review
- A Phase I clinical trial of dose-escalated metabolic therapy combined with concomitant radiation therapy in high-grade glioma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2021Article
- Current status and recent advances in reirradiation of glioblastoma.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Review
- Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with temozolomide in the treatment of recurrent malignant gliomas and its influence on serum tumor markers.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Predicting survival in anaplastic astrocytoma patients in a single-center cohort of 108 patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Low Fraction Size Re-irradiation for Large Volume Recurrence of Glial Tumours.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2020Article
- A balanced score to predict survival of elderly patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- The role of large volume re-irradiation with Bevacizumab in chemorefractory high grade glioma.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2020Article
- First statement on preparation for the COVID-19 pandemic in large German Speaking University-based radiation oncology departments.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Review
- Reirradiation of recurrent high-grade glioma and development of prognostic scores for progression and survival.Neuro-oncology practice · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor about 30 years, researchers developed prognostic scores and searched for prognostic factors to predict outcomes for cancer patients. The "Combs Prognostic Score" for re-irradiation in recurrent glioma was recently validated and results showed that the score is a significant (p < .001) and reliable predictor for patients undergoing re-irradiation (re-RT). We sought to enhance the score and generated a novel scoring approach, taking into account the information on resection of recurrent tumors, KPS, and tumor volume. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe prognostic score was generated based on 209 patients treated between 2002 and 2016 for recurrent glioma at the department of radiation oncology at the Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich. To further enhance the previously validated Combs Prognostic Score, which uses the prognostic factors primary histology, time between primary RT and re-RT, and age, we added KPS, tumor volume (PTV) and re-resection into the scoring scheme.
resultsThe median follow-up time was 3.5 months. 67.5% were WHO IV gliomas with a median OS after re-RT of 7.9 months, 17.7% were WHO III gliomas with an OS of 11.3 months and 14.8% were WHO I/II gliomas with an OS of 14.7 months. Multivariate analyses confirmed the prognostic factors KPS (p < .001) and showed a tendency to significance for tumor volume (p = .067) and re-resection (p = .064). The new prognostic score demonstrated a high significance (p < .001).
conclusionThe "New Combs Prognostics Score" is a significant and useful tool to predict the overall effect of re-RT in patients with recurrence gliomas. This modified score offers an even better way to classify patients in clinical routine and prospective clinical trials investigating re-irradiation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.