ArticleCancer medicine2024
Gliosarcoma: A Multi-Institutional Analysis on Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. 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.
- Tumor microenvironment-preserving gliosarcoma organoids as an in vitro preclinical platform: a comparative analysis with glioblastoma models.Journal of translational medicine · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study describes oncological outcomes and investigates prognostic factors for patients with gliosarcomas (GSM).
methodsHistopathologically confirmed GSM patients who underwent treatment at five European institutions were retrospectively analyzed.
resultsWe analyzed 170 patients with a median clinical follow-up time of 9.2 months. The majority received surgery (94.1%), postoperative radiotherapy (pRT, 81.8%), and temozolomide (TMZ)-based postoperative chemotherapy (66.5%). The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 12.3 and 6.6 months, respectively. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis (MVA), the following factors were significantly associated with OS: age per year (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, p < 0.001), subtotal resection (STR) versus biopsy only (HR: 0.15, p = 0.018), gross total resection (GTR) versus biopsy only (HR: 0.13, p = 0.011), pRT versus no pRT (HR: 0.20, p < 0.001), postoperative TMZ-based chemotherapy versus no postoperative chemotherapy (HR: 0.44, p = 0.003), MGMT promoter non-methylated versus methylated (HR: 1.79, p = 0.05), and tumor diameter per cm (HR: 1.15, p = 0.046). For PFS, the following factors were significantly associated in the MVA: GTR versus biopsy only (HR: 0.19, p = 0.026), pRT versus no pRT (HR: 0.36, p = 0.006), postoperative TMZ-based chemotherapy vs. no postoperative chemotherapy (HR: 0.39, p < 0.001), MGMT promoter status unknown versus methylated (HR: 1.69, p = 0.034), and tumor diameter per cm (HR: 1.18, p = 0.016). Sex, primary or secondary GSM, and TP53 mutational status were not significantly associated with OS or PFS.
conclusionsTrimodal therapy comprising surgical resection, pRT and TMZ-based chemotherapy appears to have the most beneficial effect on survival in GSM patients. Smaller tumor size, younger age and methylated MGMT promoters are associated with improved survival. To our knowledge, this is the largest multi-institutional cohort study investigating outcomes and prognostic factors for GSM.
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.