ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
A multicenter analysis of prognostic factors for patients undergoing re-irradiation for recurrent glioblastoma.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Re-irradiation (re-RT) has gained popularity in the treatment of recurrent or progressive glioblastoma (rGBM) after first-line treatment. However, uncertainties regarding optimal treatment dose, fraction size and target volume definition remain. In this multicenter analysis of the Western German Cancer Center (WTZ), we analyze prognostic factors for patients treated with re-RT for rGBM with different fraction regimens. Methods: We analyzed patients with rGBM (CNS-WHO °4, IDH-wildtype) who received re-RT after standard first-line treatment (±salvage resection/chemotherapy) between 01/2010 and 12/2021. Clinical, histopathological, and radiological data were evaluated to identify prognostic factors influencing event-free and overall survival, as well as treatment tolerability. Results: We identified 118 patients, of whom 87 received normofractionated (1.8-2 Gy/fx) re-RT with a mean dose of 40.8 Gy using a mean gross tumor volume-planning target volume (GT-PTV) margin of 8.8 mm. 31 patients were treated with moderate hypofractionation (2.4-3.5 Gy/fx) up to a mean dose of 36 Gy with a mean GTV-PTV margin of 4.1 mm. Propensity score weighting was used to compensate prognostic factors between these 2 cohorts. Re-resection classification (no, STR, GTR, Conclusion: Age at initial diagnosis, progression pattern, and time between first and second RT are prognostic for patients undergoing re-RT. No significant survival difference between normofractionated and hypofractionated approaches was detected, which should be further investigated.
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.