ReviewBrain & spine2024
The role of lobectomy in glioblastoma management: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Brain & spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07162324 (Prognostic Factors, Surgical Management and Survival of Glioblastoma Patients), which is not on this 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.
Prognostic Factors, Surgical Management and Survival of Glioblastoma Patients: a Multicenter Prospective Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Cancer neuroscience and glioma: clinical implications.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Review
- The role of Lobectomy in Glioblastoma management: A Retrospective series.Brain & spine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Lobectomy has recently been employed in the management of glioblastoma (GB). Compared to subtotal, gross total and supramarginal resection, lobectomy provides maximum cytoreduction and improves overall survival (OS). Research question: The primary aim of this study is to compare lobectomy to other techniques for managing GB in terms of OS and progression-free survival (PFS). This study evaluated the association of the available surgical techniques for GB management with the reported relevant seizure outcome, operation time, length of stay, complication incidence, and Karnofsky performance status. Materials and methods: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 2013 until April 2023. Random-effects models were employed. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the GRADE approach were used for estimating risk of bias and quality of evidence. Results: We included six studies. Lobectomy demonstrated a mean OS of 25 months, compared to 13.72 months for gross total resection (GTR), and a PFS of 16.13 months, compared to 8.77 months for GTR. Comparing lobectomy to GTR, no statistically significant differences were observed regarding seizure management, length of stay, operation time, complications, and KPS due to limited amount of data. Discussion and conclusion: Our analysis demonstrated that lobectomy compared to GTR has a tremendous impact on the OS and the PFS, which seems to be improved almost by a year. Lobectomy, while demanding from a technical standpoint, constitutes a safe surgical procedure but further studies should assess its exact role in the management of GB patients.
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.