ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2026
Multimodal techniques for maximal safe resection of IDH-mutant low-grade glioma involving corpus callosum, a retrospective study and prognosis analysis.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe IDH-mutant low-grade glioma (LGG) involving corpus callosum (ccLGG) is a rare type of LGG which has a poorer prognosis. To evaluate the efficacy of multimodal techniques (comprising neuronavigation, intraoperative MRI, and neuromonitoring) compared with the conventional approach guided solely by neuronavigation in the resection of IDH-mutant ccLGG, and to identify prognostic factors of ccLGG.
methodsThe IDH-mutant ccLGG cases that received resection in our center between 2014 and 2022 were collected and reviewed retrospectively. Comparisons were made between the multimodal and conventional groups regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, extent of resection (EOR), neurological function, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Both univariate and multivariate analysis were employed to assess potential prognostic factors.
resultsUltimately, 64 patients in the multimodal group and 34 in the conventional group were enrolled. Compared with the conventional group, the multimodal group achieved a significantly higher median EOR (100% vs. 93.55%, P = 0.001) and a greater gross total resection (GTR) rate (62.5% vs. 35.3%, P = 0.010). No significant differences were observed in postoperative neurological function or KPS between the two groups at any of the time points assessed. Compared with the conventional group, the multimodal group demonstrated significantly longer median PFS (78.5 vs. 48.1 months, P = 0.010) and OS (106.1 vs. 66.9 months, P = 0.009). Non-butterfly ccLGG, less tumor volume, genu invasion of CC (compared to splenium invasion), less volume of CC invasion, higher EOR, longer chemotherapy cycles of Temozolomide (TMZ), higher KPS on 3 months and MGMT methylation were positive factors for PFS of ccLGG. While four factors were associated with the longer OS of ccLGG, including genu of CC invasion compared to both genu and body invasion of CC, higher EOR, longer TMZ cycles and MGMT methylation.
conclusionMultimodal techniques are useful for achieving maximal safe resection and better prognosis of ccLGG. As higher EOR independently predicts improved survival in IDH-mutant ccLGG, maximal safe resection should be suggested and achieved by appropriate means tailored to available resources. The postoperative chemotherapy should also be recommended to patients with high risks. While whether postoperative radiotherapy should be performed should consider and balance many factors.
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.