Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33215088›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology advances

OptimalTTF-1: Enhancing tumor treating fields therapy with skull remodeling surgery. A clinical phase I trial in adult recurrent glioblastoma.

Anders Rosendal Korshoej, Slavka Lukacova, Yasmin Lassen-Ramshad, Christian Rahbek, Kåre Eg Severinsen, Trine Lignell Guldberg, Nikola Mikic, Mette Haldrup Jensen, Søren Ole Stigaard Cortnum, Gorm von Oettingen and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. A New Method for Optimal Placement of Tumor Treating Fields Electrodes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anders Rosendal KorshoejDepartment of Neurosurgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4285-8171
Slavka LukacovaDepartment of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Yasmin Lassen-RamshadDanish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Christian RahbekDepartment of Neuroradiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus Denmark.
Kåre Eg SeverinsenDepartment of Neurology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Trine Lignell GuldbergDepartment of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Nikola MikicDepartment of Neurosurgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mette Haldrup JensenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Søren Ole Stigaard CortnumDepartment of Neurosurgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Gorm von OettingenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Jens Christian Hedemann SørensenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University Hospital · DKAarhus University · DKAalborg University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreclinical studies suggest that skull remodeling surgery (SR-surgery) increases the dose of tumor treating fields (TTFields) in glioblastoma (GBM) and prevents wasteful current shunting through the skin. SR-surgery introduces minor skull defects to focus the cancer-inhibiting currents toward the tumor and increase the treatment dose. This study aimed to test the safety and feasibility of this concept in a phase I setting.

methodsFifteen adult patients with the first recurrence of GBM were treated with personalized SR-surgery, TTFields, and physician's choice oncological therapy. The primary endpoint was toxicity and secondary endpoints included standard efficacy outcomes.

resultsSR-surgery resulted in a mean skull defect area of 10.6 cm

conclusionsTTFields therapy combined with SR-surgery and medical oncological treatment is safe and nontoxic and holds the potential to improve the outcome for GBM patients through focal dose enhancement in the tumor.

Indexed as

craniectomyglioblastomaneuro-oncologyneurosurgerytumor treating fields

Identifiers

PMID33215088
PMCPMC7660275
OpenAlexW3099242047

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.