Optimal extent of resection for glioblastoma according to site, extension, and size: a population-based study in the temozolomide era
The effect of the extent of resection (EOR) on prognosis in glioblastoma may differ depending on various conditions. We evaluated the prognostic impact of the EOR for glioblastoma according to the tumor site, extension, and size. Data from glioblastoma patients who underwent gross total resection (GTR), subtotal resection (STR), or open biopsy between 2005 and 2014 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Univariate and multivariate analyses for overall survival (OS) were performed. Between 2005–2009 and 2010–2014, the proportion of GTR and STR performed increased from 41.4 to 42.3% and 33.0 to 37.1%, respectively. EOR only affected OS in the 3 years after diagnosis. Median survival in the GTR (n = 4155), STR (n = 3498), and open biopsy (n = 2258) groups was 17, 13, and 13 months, respectively (p < .001). STR showed no significant difference in OS from open biopsy (p = .33). GTR increased OS for midline-crossing tumors. Although STR was more frequently performed than GTR for tumors ≥ 6 cm in size, GTR significantly increased the OS rate relative to STR for tumors 6–8 cm in size (p = .001). For tumors ≥ 8 cm, STR was comparable to GTR (p = .61) and superior to open biopsy (p = .05). GTR needs to be performed more frequently for glioblastoma measuring ≥ 6 cm or that have crossed the midline to increase OS. STR was marginally superior to open biopsy when the tumor was ≥ 8 cm.
KeywordsOpen biopsy Extent of resection Glioblastoma Gross total resection SEER database Subtotal resection
This study was supported by funding provided to In An Kim by Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund (#182018-001 and #14-2018-003).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, informed consent was not required.
- 4.Simpson J, Horton J, Scott C, Curran W, Rubin P, Fischbach J, Isaacson S, Rotman M, Asbell S, Nelson J (1993) Influence of location and extent of surgical resection on survival of patients with glioblastoma multiforme: results of three consecutive Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 26:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Han SJ, Sughrue ME (2012) The rise and fall of “biopsy and radiate”: a history of surgical nihilism in glioma treatment. Neurosurg Clin N Am 23:207–214Google Scholar
- 21.Rahman M, Abbatematteo J, De Leo EK, Kubilis PS, Vaziri S, Bova F, Sayour E, Mitchell D, Quinones-Hinojosa A (2016) The effects of new or worsened postoperative neurological deficits on survival of patients with glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 127:123–131Google Scholar
- 23.Weber DC, Miller RC, Villà S, Hanssens P, Baumert BG, Castadot P, Varlet P, Abacioglu U, Igdem S, Szutowicz E (2006) Outcome and prognostic factors in cerebellar glioblastoma multiforme in adults: a retrospective study from the Rare Cancer Network. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Malmström A, Grønberg BH, Marosi C, Stupp R, Frappaz D, Schultz H, Abacioglu U, Tavelin B, Lhermitte B, Hegi ME (2012) Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:916–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Parsons DW, Jones S, Zhang X, Lin JC-H, Leary RJ, Angenendt P, Mankoo P, Carter H, Siu I-M, Gallia GL (2008) An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science 321:1807–12Google Scholar