PURPOSE: Due to the infiltrative nature of glioblastoma (GBM) outside of the contrast-enhancing region on MRI, there is interest in exploring supratotal resections (SpTR) that extend beyond the contrast-enhancing portion of the tumor. However, there is currently no consensus on the potential survival benefit of SpTR in GBM compared to gross total resection (GTR). In this study, we compare the impact of SpTR versus GTR on overall survival (OS) of GBM patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature published on PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to August 16, 2018, to identify articles comparing OS after SpTR versus GTR. RESULTS: We identified 8902 unique citations, of which 11 articles met study inclusion criteria. 810 patients underwent SpTR out of a total of 2056 patients. 9 of 11 studies demonstrated improved outcomes with SpTR compared to GTR (median improvement in OS of 10.5 months), with no significant difference in postoperative complication rate. Overall study quality was variable, with ten studies presenting level IV evidence and one study presenting level IIIb evidence. Subgroup meta-analysis based on SpTR definition demonstrated a statistically significant 35% lower risk of mortality in patients who underwent anatomical SpTR compared to patients who underwent GTR (Hazard ratio = 0.65, 95% CI 0.47- 0.91, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Our systematic review indicates SpTR may be associated with improved OS compared to GTR for GBM, especially with anatomical SpTR. However, this is limited by variable study design and significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity among studies. There is need for prospective clinical data to further guide parameters regarding the use of SpTR in GBM.
PURPOSE: Due to the infiltrative nature of glioblastoma (GBM) outside of the contrast-enhancing region on MRI, there is interest in exploring supratotal resections (SpTR) that extend beyond the contrast-enhancing portion of the tumor. However, there is currently no consensus on the potential survival benefit of SpTR in GBM compared to gross total resection (GTR). In this study, we compare the impact of SpTR versus GTR on overall survival (OS) of GBM patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature published on PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to August 16, 2018, to identify articles comparing OS after SpTR versus GTR. RESULTS: We identified 8902 unique citations, of which 11 articles met study inclusion criteria. 810 patients underwent SpTR out of a total of 2056 patients. 9 of 11 studies demonstrated improved outcomes with SpTR compared to GTR (median improvement in OS of 10.5 months), with no significant difference in postoperative complication rate. Overall study quality was variable, with ten studies presenting level IV evidence and one study presenting level IIIb evidence. Subgroup meta-analysis based on SpTR definition demonstrated a statistically significant 35% lower risk of mortality in patients who underwent anatomical SpTR compared to patients who underwent GTR (Hazard ratio = 0.65, 95% CI 0.47- 0.91, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Our systematic review indicates SpTR may be associated with improved OS compared to GTR for GBM, especially with anatomical SpTR. However, this is limited by variable study design and significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity among studies. There is need for prospective clinical data to further guide parameters regarding the use of SpTR in GBM.
Authors: M Lacroix; D Abi-Said; D R Fourney; Z L Gokaslan; W Shi; F DeMonte; F F Lang; I E McCutcheon; S J Hassenbusch; E Holland; K Hess; C Michael; D Miller; R Sawaya Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Spyros Darmanis; Steven A Sloan; Derek Croote; Marco Mignardi; Sophia Chernikova; Peyman Samghababi; Ye Zhang; Norma Neff; Mark Kowarsky; Christine Caneda; Gordon Li; Steven D Chang; Ian David Connolly; Yingmei Li; Ben A Barres; Melanie Hayden Gephart; Stephen R Quake Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Maryam Rahman; Joseph Abbatematteo; Edward K De Leo; Paul S Kubilis; Sasha Vaziri; Frank Bova; Elias Sayour; Duane Mitchell; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Anne L Baldock; Sunyoung Ahn; Russell Rockne; Sandra Johnston; Maxwell Neal; David Corwin; Kamala Clark-Swanson; Greg Sterin; Andrew D Trister; Hani Malone; Victoria Ebiana; Adam M Sonabend; Maciej Mrugala; Jason K Rockhill; Daniel L Silbergeld; Albert Lai; Timothy Cloughesy; Guy M McKhann; Jeffrey N Bruce; Robert C Rostomily; Peter Canoll; Kristin R Swanson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Oliver Eidel; Sina Burth; Jan-Oliver Neumann; Pascal J Kieslich; Felix Sahm; Christine Jungk; Philipp Kickingereder; Sebastian Bickelhaupt; Sibu Mundiyanapurath; Philipp Bäumer; Wolfgang Wick; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Karl Kiening; Andreas Unterberg; Martin Bendszus; Alexander Radbruch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Timothy J Brown; Matthew C Brennan; Michael Li; Ephraim W Church; Nicholas J Brandmeir; Kevin L Rakszawski; Akshal S Patel; Elias B Rizk; Dima Suki; Raymond Sawaya; Michael Glantz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Maureen Rakovec; Adham M Khalafallah; Oren Wei; David Day; Jason P Sheehan; Jonathan H Sherman; Debraj Mukherjee Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Adham M Khalafallah; Maureen Rakovec; Chetan Bettegowda; Christopher M Jackson; Gary L Gallia; Jon D Weingart; Michael Lim; Yoshua Esquenazi; Brad E Zacharia; Ezequiel Goldschmidt; Mateo Ziu; Michael E Ivan; Andrew S Venteicher; Edjah K Nduom; Adam N Mamelak; Ray M Chu; John S Yu; Jason P Sheehan; Brian V Nahed; Bob S Carter; Mitchel S Berger; Raymond Sawaya; Debraj Mukherjee Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315