Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33791952›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2021

Second surgery for progressive glioblastoma: a multi-centre questionnaire and cohort-based review of clinical decision-making and patient outcomes in current practice.

P M Brennan, R Borchert, C Coulter, G R Critchley, B Hall, D Holliman, I Phang, S J Jefferies, S Keni, L Lee and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

18 authors.

P M BrennanTranslational Neurosurgery, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, Edinburgh BioQuarter, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK. paul.brennan@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7347-830X
R BorchertAddenbrookes University Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
C CoulterRoyal Victoria Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
G R CritchleyBrighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK.
B HallInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
D HollimanRoyal Victoria Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
I PhangLancashire teaching Hospitals, Preston, UK.
S J JefferiesAddenbrookes University Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
S KeniUniversity of Edinburgh medical School, Edinburgh, UK.
L LeeUniversity of Edinburgh medical School, Edinburgh, UK.
I LiaquatDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
H J MarcusNational Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, UK.
S ThomsonLeeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK.
L ThorneUniversity College London Hospitals, London, UK.
M VintuBrighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK.
A N WigginsDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
M D JenkinsonInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
S ErridgeDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGlioblastoma prognosis is poor. Treatment options are limited at progression. Surgery may benefit, but no quality guidelines exist to inform patient selection. We sought to describe variations in surgical management at progression, highlight where further evidence is needed, and build towards a consensus strategy.

methodsCurrent practice in selection of patients with progressive GBM for second surgery was surveyed online amongst specialists in the UK and Europe. We complemented this with an assessment of practice in a retrospective cohort study from six United Kingdom neurosurgical units. We used descriptive statistics to analyse the data.

results234 questionnaire responses were received. Maintaining or improving patient quality of life was key to decision making, with variation as to whether patient age, performance status or intended extent of resection was relevant. MGMT methylation status was not important. Half considered no minimum time after first surgery. 288 patients were reported in the cohort analysis. Median time to second surgery from first surgery 390 days. Median overall survival 815 days, with no association between time to second surgery and time to death (p = 0.874).

conclusionsThis is the most wide-ranging examination of contemporaneous practice in management of GBM progression. Without evidence-based guidelines, the variation is unsurprising. We propose consensus guidelines for consideration, to reduce heterogeneity in decision making, support data collection and analysis of factors influencing outcomes, and to inform clinical trials to establish whether second surgery improves patient outcomes, or simply selects to patients already performing well.

Indexed as

GlioblastomaClinical Decision-MakingCohort StudiesHumansQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesGlioblastomaProgressionRecurrenceSurgery

Identifiers

PMID33791952
PMCPMC8131335

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.