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.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of intraoperative mapping during re-resection in recurrent gliomas: a systematic review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- The utility of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging in recurrent glioblastoma surgery: A volumetric analysis.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Novel Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 3-Fatty Acid Synthase Gene Fusion in Recurrent Epithelioid Glioblastoma Linked to Aggressive Clinical Progression.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Second surgery for relapsed glioblastoma: an observational study on criteria for patient selection in real life.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Observational
- FISH analysis reveals CDKN2A and IFNA14 co-deletion is heterogeneous and is a prominent feature of glioblastoma.Brain tumor pathology · 2024Article
- Review
- Macrophages in Recurrent Glioblastoma as a Prognostic Factor in the Synergistic System of the Tumor Microenvironment.Neurology international · 2023Review
- Recurrent Glioblastoma: Ongoing Clinical Challenges and Future Prospects.OncoTargets and therapy · 2023Review
- Management of Recurrent Glioblastomas: What Can We Learn from the French Glioblastoma Biobank?Cancers · 2022Article
- Imaging timing after glioblastoma surgery (INTERVAL-GB): protocol for a UK and Ireland, multicentre retrospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Targeted delivery of gold nanoparticles by neural stem cells to glioblastoma for enhanced radiation therapy: a review.AIMS neuroscience · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.