ReviewNeurosurgical review2019
Is it all a matter of size? Impact of maximization of surgical resection in cerebral tumors.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of anatomical-based vs. nTMS-based risk stratification model for predicting postoperative motor outcome and extent of resection in brain tumor surgery.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2023Article
- Age-stratified clinical performance and survival of patients with IDH-wildtype glioblastoma homogeneously treated by radiotherapy with concomitant and maintenance temozolomide.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Quantification of PpIX-fluorescence of cerebral metastases: a pilot study.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2019Article
- Systemic Therapy of Lung Cancer CNS Metastases Using Molecularly Targeted Agents and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.CNS drugs · 2018Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The oncological impact of cytoreductive surgery for malignant glioma has been analyzed in a few prospective, randomized studies; however, the impact of different cytoreductive surgical techniques of cerebral tumors remains controversial. Despite retrospective analyses revealing an oncological impact of complete surgical resection in cerebral metastases and low-grade glioma, the oncological impact of further extension of resection to a supramarginal resection remains disputable lacking high-grade evidence: supramarginal resections have yet to be analyzed in malignant glioma. Although extension of resection towards a supramarginal resection was thought to improve outcome and prevent malignant transformation in low-grade glioma, the rate of (temporary) deficits was higher than 50% in recent retrospective studies, and the oncological impact and long-term results have to be analyzed in further (prospective and controlled) studies. Cerebral metastases show a growth pattern different from glioma with less and more locally limited brain invasion. Therefore, local control may be achieved by extension of resection after complete lesionectomy of cerebral metastases. Therefore, supramarginal resection may be a promising approach but must be evaluated in further studies.
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.