ArticleBrain & spine2023
Stereotactic laser ablation in neuro-oncology - A survey among European neurosurgeons.
Article in Brain & spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the last decades, the application of stereotactic laser ablation (SLA) for the treatment of intracranial tumours has been growing, even though comparative trials are lacking. Our aim was to investigate the familiarity with SLA of neurosurgeons in Europe and their opinion regarding potential neuro-oncological indications. Furthermore, we investigated treatment preferences and variability for three exemplar neuro-oncological cases and willingness to refer for SLA. Material and methods: A 26-questions survey was mailed to members of the EANS neuro-oncology section. We presented three clinical cases of respectively deep-seated glioblastoma, recurrent metastasis and recurrent glioblastoma. Descriptive statistics was applied to report results. Results: 110 respondents completed all questions. Recurrent glioblastoma and recurrent metastases were regarded as the most feasible indications for SLA (chosen by 69% and 58% of the respondents) followed by newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas (31%). Seventy percent of respondents would refer patients for SLA. The majority of respondents would consider SLA as a treatment option for all three presented cases: 79% for the deep-seated glioblastoma case, 65% for the recurrent metastasis case and 76% for the recurrent glioblastoma case. Among respondents who wouldn't consider SLA, preference for standard treatment and lack of clinical evidence were reported as the main reasons. Conclusions: Most of respondents considered SLA as a treatment option for recurrent glioblastoma, recurrent metastases and newly diagnosed deep-seated glioblastoma. At the moment the current evidence to support such a treatment is very low. Comparative prospective trials are needed to support the use of SLA and determine proper indications.
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.