ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Lack of survival advantage among re-resected elderly glioblastoma patients: a SEER-Medicare study.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic impact of second surgical resection in IDH wildtype recurrent glioblastoma following chemo-radiation therapy: a propensity score analysis cohort study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Provider Volume Impacts Neurosurgical Procedure Selection in Older Patients With High-Grade Glioma.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Survival prediction of glioblastoma patients using modern deep learning and machine learning techniques.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Prognostic nomogram models for predicting survival probability in elderly glioblastoma patients.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Optimal managements of elderly patients with glioblastoma.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Review
- A Population-Based Study of Treatment and Survival in Older Glioma Patients.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Article
- Recurrent glioblastoma in elderly: Options and decision for the treatment.Surgical neurology international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe survival benefit of re-resection for glioblastoma (GBM) remains controversial, owing to the immortal time bias inadequately considered in many studies where re-resection was treated as a fixed, rather than a time-dependent factor. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare (SEER-Medicare) database, we assessed treatment patterns for older adults and evaluated the association between re-resection and overall survival (OS), accounting for the timing of re-resection.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included elderly patients (age ≥66) in the SEER-Medicare linked database diagnosed with GBM between 2006 and 2015 who underwent initial resection. Time-dependent Cox regression was used to assess the association between re-resection and OS, controlling for age, gender, race, poverty level, geographic region, marital status, comorbidities, receipt of radiation + temozolomide, and surgical complications.
resultsOur analysis included 3604 patients with median age 74 (range: 66-96); 54% were men and 94% were white. After initial resection, 44% received radiation + temozolomide and these patients had a lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.31,
conclusionsRe-resection rates were low among elderly GBM patients, and no survival advantage was observed for patients who underwent re-resection. However, patients who received standard of care at initial diagnosis had a lower risk of death. Older adults benefit from receiving radiation + temozolomide after initial resection, and future studies should assess the relationship between re-resection and OS taking the time of re-resection into account.
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.