Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33156423›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2021

Survival prediction of glioblastoma patients-are we there yet? A systematic review of prognostic modeling for glioblastoma and its clinical potential.

Ishaan Ashwini Tewarie, Joeky T Senders, Stijn Kremer, Sharmila Devi, William B Gormley, Omar Arnaout, Timothy R Smith, Marike L D Broekman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

8 authors.

Ishaan Ashwini TewarieDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, Lijnbaan 32, 2512 VA, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Joeky T SendersDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, Lijnbaan 32, 2512 VA, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Stijn KremerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, Lijnbaan 32, 2512 VA, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Sharmila DeviComputational Neurosciences Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
William B GormleyComputational Neurosciences Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Omar ArnaoutComputational Neurosciences Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Timothy R SmithComputational Neurosciences Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Marike L D BroekmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, Lijnbaan 32, 2512 VA, The Hague, The Netherlands. m.broekman@haaglandenmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2205-5179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma is associated with a poor prognosis. Even though survival statistics are well-described at the population level, it remains challenging to predict the prognosis of an individual patient despite the increasing number of prognostic models. The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature on prognostic modeling in glioblastoma patients. A systematic literature search was performed to identify all relevant studies that developed a prognostic model for predicting overall survival in glioblastoma patients following the PRISMA guidelines. Participants, type of input, algorithm type, validation, and testing procedures were reviewed per prognostic model. Among 595 citations, 27 studies were included for qualitative review. The included studies developed and evaluated a total of 59 models, of which only seven were externally validated in a different patient cohort. The predictive performance among these studies varied widely according to the AUC (0.58-0.98), accuracy (0.69-0.98), and C-index (0.66-0.70). Three studies deployed their model as an online prediction tool, all of which were based on a statistical algorithm. The increasing performance of survival prediction models will aid personalized clinical decision-making in glioblastoma patients. The scientific realm is gravitating towards the use of machine learning models developed on high-dimensional data, often with promising results. However, none of these models has been implemented into clinical care. To facilitate the clinical implementation of high-performing survival prediction models, future efforts should focus on harmonizing data acquisition methods, improving model interpretability, and externally validating these models in multicentered, prospective fashion.

Indexed as

GlioblastomaAlgorithmsClinical Decision-MakingHumansPrognosisProspective StudiesGlioblastomaNeurosurgeryOverall survivalPrognostic modeling

Identifiers

PMID33156423
PMCPMC8338817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.