Bowen Jiang1, Kaisorn Chaichana1, Anand Veeravagu2, Steven D Chang2, Keith L Black3, Chirag G Patil3. 1. Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21287. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford School of Medicine, 679 Oxford Ave, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 94306. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8631 West Third Street, Suite 800E, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 90048.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2013, Issue 4.Low-grade gliomas (LGG) constitute a class of slow-growing primary brain neoplasms. Patients with clinically and radiographically suspected LGG have two initial surgical options, biopsy or resection. Biopsy can provide a histological diagnosis with minimal risk but does not offer a direct treatment. Resection may have additional benefits such as increasing survival and delaying recurrence, but is associated with a higher risk for surgical morbidity. There remains controversy about the role of biopsy versus resection and the relative clinical outcomes for the management of LGG. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of biopsy compared to surgical resection in patients with a new lesion suspected to be a LGG. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched in 2012 for the first version of the review: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November week 3 2012), Embase (1980 to Week 46 2012). For this updated version, the following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE (Nov 2012 to June week 3 2016), Embase (Nov 2012 to 2016 week 26). All relevant articles were identified on PubMed and by using the 'related articles' feature. We also searched unpublished and grey literature including ISRCTN-metaRegister of Controled Trials, Physicians Data Query and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include patients of any age with a suspected intracranial LGG receiving biopsy or resection within a randomized clinical trial (RCT) or controlled clinical trial (CCT). Patients with prior resections, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy for LGG were excluded. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), functionally independent survival (FIS), adverse events, symptom control, and quality of life (QoL). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A total of 1375 updated citations were searched and critically analyzed for relevance. This was undertaken independently by two review authors. The original electronic database searches yielded a total of 2764 citations. In total, 4139 citations have been critically analyzed for this updated review. MAIN RESULTS: No new RCTs of biopsy or resection for LGG were identified. No additional ineligible non-randomized studies (NRS) were included in this updated review. Twenty other ineligible studies were previously retrieved for further analysis despite not meeting the pre-specified criteria. Ten studies were retrospective or were literature reviews. Three studies were prospective, however they were limited to tumor recurrence and volumetric analysis and extent of resection. One study was a population-based parallel cohort in Norway, but not an RCT. Four studies were RCTs, however patients were randomized with respect to varying radiotherapy regimens to assess timing and dose of radiation. One RCT was on high-grade gliomas (HGGs) and not LGG. Finally, one RCT evaluated diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-based neuro-navigation for surgical resection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, no new studies have been identified for inclusion and currently there are no RCTs or CCTs available on which to base definitive clinical decisions. Therefore, physicians must approach each case individually and weigh the risks and benefits of each intervention until further evidence is available. Some retrospective studies and non-randomized prospective studies do seem to suggest improved OS and seizure control correlating to higher extent of resection. Future research could focus on RCTs to determine outcomes benefits for biopsy versus resection.
BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2013, Issue 4.Low-grade gliomas (LGG) constitute a class of slow-growing primary brain neoplasms. Patients with clinically and radiographically suspected LGG have two initial surgical options, biopsy or resection. Biopsy can provide a histological diagnosis with minimal risk but does not offer a direct treatment. Resection may have additional benefits such as increasing survival and delaying recurrence, but is associated with a higher risk for surgical morbidity. There remains controversy about the role of biopsy versus resection and the relative clinical outcomes for the management of LGG. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of biopsy compared to surgical resection in patients with a new lesion suspected to be a LGG. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched in 2012 for the first version of the review: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November week 3 2012), Embase (1980 to Week 46 2012). For this updated version, the following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE (Nov 2012 to June week 3 2016), Embase (Nov 2012 to 2016 week 26). All relevant articles were identified on PubMed and by using the 'related articles' feature. We also searched unpublished and grey literature including ISRCTN-metaRegister of Controled Trials, Physicians Data Query and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include patients of any age with a suspected intracranial LGG receiving biopsy or resection within a randomized clinical trial (RCT) or controlled clinical trial (CCT). Patients with prior resections, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy for LGG were excluded. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), functionally independent survival (FIS), adverse events, symptom control, and quality of life (QoL). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A total of 1375 updated citations were searched and critically analyzed for relevance. This was undertaken independently by two review authors. The original electronic database searches yielded a total of 2764 citations. In total, 4139 citations have been critically analyzed for this updated review. MAIN RESULTS: No new RCTs of biopsy or resection for LGG were identified. No additional ineligible non-randomized studies (NRS) were included in this updated review. Twenty other ineligible studies were previously retrieved for further analysis despite not meeting the pre-specified criteria. Ten studies were retrospective or were literature reviews. Three studies were prospective, however they were limited to tumor recurrence and volumetric analysis and extent of resection. One study was a population-based parallel cohort in Norway, but not an RCT. Four studies were RCTs, however patients were randomized with respect to varying radiotherapy regimens to assess timing and dose of radiation. One RCT was on high-grade gliomas (HGGs) and not LGG. Finally, one RCT evaluated diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-based neuro-navigation for surgical resection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, no new studies have been identified for inclusion and currently there are no RCTs or CCTs available on which to base definitive clinical decisions. Therefore, physicians must approach each case individually and weigh the risks and benefits of each intervention until further evidence is available. Some retrospective studies and non-randomized prospective studies do seem to suggest improved OS and seizure control correlating to higher extent of resection. Future research could focus on RCTs to determine outcomes benefits for biopsy versus resection.
Authors: Maya Harary; Vasileios K Kavouridis; Matthew Torre; Hasan A Zaidi; Ugonma N Chukwueke; David A Reardon; Timothy R Smith; J Bryan Iorgulescu Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: David Schiff; Martin Van den Bent; Michael A Vogelbaum; Wolfgang Wick; C Ryan Miller; Martin Taphoorn; Whitney Pope; Paul D Brown; Michael Platten; Rakesh Jalali; Terri Armstrong; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Daniel M Fountain; Andrew Bryant; Damiano Giuseppe Barone; Mueez Waqar; Michael G Hart; Helen Bulbeck; Ashleigh Kernohan; Colin Watts; Michael D Jenkinson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-01-04
Authors: Tumul Chowdhury; Frederick A Zeiler; Gyaninder P Singh; Abseret Hailu; Hal Loewen; Bernhard Schaller; Ronald B Cappellani; Michael West Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 6.244