ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2025
Site of first treatment failure after standard-of-care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in a Danish cohort.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this nationwide study was to identify predictive factors for isolated local, non-local, and combined treatment failure in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. Methods: All adults with newly diagnosed glioblastoma in Denmark between 2014 and 2019 who were planned for long-course (chemo)radiotherapy were included. The MRI scan of first progression following RANO criteria was used to assess the site of failure. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression was applied to analyze the association between potential risk factors and the site of failure. Prediction models were derived. Results: We included 939 patients, of whom 758 had radiographic progression. Of those, 525 patients (69%) had isolated local failure, 114 (15%) non-local, and 119 (16%) combined. In patients with an Conclusions: It was not feasible to identify strong predictors for the site of first treatment failure, and hence, to derive an accurate prediction model. Isolated local failure was dominant in both patients with an
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.