Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41147694›Full record

ReviewCNS oncology2025

Surgical decision making in the era of supramarginal glioma resections: a current perspective and narrative review.

Max O Krucoff

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CNS oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Max O KrucoffDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9577-8944

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether to surgically resect a margin of grossly normal appearing brain around anatomically amenable diffuse gliomas (i.e., perform a supratotal, supramarginal, or supramaximal resection) has been controversial. Over the past 5-10 years, however, evidence published by multiple independent groups has established a substantial survival benefit to this approach, moving the field towards a consensus that supramarginal resections should be offered when possible. However, many practitioners remain hesitant to offer supratotal resections due to concerns for variable neuropsychological outcomes and a mindset of "first, do no harm." Unfortunately, and perhaps counterintuitively, available data also suggest that opting for more conservative surgical approaches when more aggressive resections are possible may result in both suboptimal long-term functional and survival outcomes. To explore this complex and actively evolving issue, here I review evidence surrounding the multidimensional clinical impacts of supramarginal resections across all diffuse glioma subtypes. I then evaluate what is known about anatomical-functional relationships subserving cognition, behavior, and mood regulation, and I examine ethical considerations that arise when counseling patients at the difficult time of diagnosis. I then conclude with a set of case examples that demonstrate how the principles explored in this review can be applied in real-world situations to optimize, individualize, and humanize oncological and functional outcomes.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingGliomaNeurosurgical ProceduresHumans

Identifiers

PMID41147694
PMCPMC12574574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.