ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2024
Adjuvant re-irradiation vs. no early re-irradiation of resected recurrent glioblastoma: pooled comparative cohort analysis from two tertiary centers.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal clinicogenetic criteria for post-operative re-irradiation in recurrent glioblastoma: KROG 21-02.ESMO open · 2026Article
- Extent of reoperation predicts survival in recurrent IDH-wildtype glioblastoma based on institutional data and individual patient data meta analysis.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal management strategy for recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) remains uncertain, and the impact of re-irradiation (Re-RT) on overall survival (OS) is still a matter of debate. This study included patients who achieved gross total resection (GTR) after a second surgery after recurrence, following the GlioCave criteria.
methodsInclusion criteria include being 18 years or older, having histologically confirmed locally recurrent IDHwt or IDH unknown GBM, achieving MRI-proven GTR after the second surgery, having a Karnofsky performance status of at least 60% after the second surgery, having a minimum interval of 6 months between the first radiotherapy and the second surgery, and a maximum of 8 weeks from second surgery to the start of Re-RT.
resultsA total of 44 patients have met the inclusion criteria. The median OS after the second surgery was 14 months. All patients underwent standard treatment after initial diagnosis, including maximum safe resection, adjuvant radiochemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy. Re-RT did not significantly impact OS. However, MGMT promoter methylation status and a longer interval (> 12 months) between treatments were associated with better OS. Multivariate analysis revealed the MGMT status as the only significant predictor of OS.
conclusionFactors such as MGMT promoter methylation status and treatment interval play crucial roles in determining patient outcomes after second surgery. Personalized treatment strategies should consider these factors to optimize the management of rGBM. Prospective research is needed to define the value of re-RT after second surgery and to inform decision making in this situation.
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.