SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Spatial patterns of progression in reported glioblastoma cohorts after upfront chemoradiation and salvage therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. 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.
- The intersection of chemokine signaling with the hallmarks of cancer in glioblastoma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSpatial patterns of glioblastoma (GBM) progression inform focal salvage eligibility, but interpretation across studies is limited by heterogeneous spatial definitions, high between-study heterogeneity, and incomplete reporting of non-enhancing/FLAIR-dominant progression. We synthesized reported progression-location involvement after upfront radiotherapy/temozolomide (RT/TMZ) and salvage therapy.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed and Scopus from January 1, 2000, to February 1, 2026, and performed arm-level random-effects meta-analysis of logit-transformed proportions. Enhancing progression was harmonized as non-mutually exclusive local/in-field, marginal/field-edge, and distant/out-of-field involvement among evaluable cases, using each study's spatial framework. The supplementary broad escape-pattern construct was defined as reported progression beyond purely local/in-field enhancing failure.
resultsWe included 107 studies (122 arms; 10,529 patients). At first progression after upfront RT/TMZ ± TTF, reported local/in-field enhancing involvement among evaluable cases was 79.2% (95% CI 75.7-82.3; k = 94; n = 6,989; I²=84.8%), and distant/out-of-field involvement was 16.9% (95% CI 14.3-19.9; k = 89; n = 6,493; I²=85.2%). After salvage therapy, local/in-field involvement remained the majority pattern reported among evaluable cases (59.8%, 95% CI 52.8-66.4; k = 27; n = 1,572; I²=80.5%), with distant/out-of-field involvement of 17.5% (95% CI 12.9-23.3; k = 21; n = 1,307; I²=75.5%) and a supplementary broad escape-pattern estimate of 38.6% (95% CI 31.9-45.9; k = 27; n = 1,572; I²=80.1%). Non-enhancing/FLAIR-dominant progression was sparsely and likely selectively reported; only six recurrent/salvage arms contributed data, yielding an exploratory pooled estimate of 27.8% (95% CI 12.8-50.3; n = 216; I²=75.7%).
conclusionPublished GBM cohorts show predominantly local/in-field enhancing progression after upfront therapy (~ 80%) and persistent majority local/in-field involvement after salvage therapy (~ 60%). Standardized reporting of enhancing, non-enhancing/FLAIR-dominant, disseminated, posterior fossa, and brainstem progression is needed.
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.