Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 481

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improved survival time trends for glioblastoma using the SEER 17 population-based registries

Open access
Koshy, Matthew, Villano, John L., Dolecek, Therese A., Howard, Andrew, Mahmood, Usama, Chmura, Steven J., Weichselbaum, Ralph R., McCarthy, Bridget J.·2012·Journal of Neuro-Oncology

Abstract

The EORTC/NCIC 22981/26981 study demonstrated an improvement in median overall survival (OS) from 12.1 to 14.6 months in patients with glioblastoma (GBM) who received temozolomide with post-operative radiotherapy (RT). The current study was performed to determine if those results translated into a survival benefit in a population-based cohort. Patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2006 with a GBM who underwent surgery and post-operative RT were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Patients were grouped into time periods: 2000–2001, 2002–2003, 2004 and 2005–2006 (which represented those treated after the EORTC/NCIC trial presentation in 2004). Relative survival (RS) was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and Cox multivariable regression modeling was used to estimate proportional hazard ratios (HR). Over time, there was improvement in the median and 2-year RS of 12 months and 15% for 2000–2001, 13 months and 19% for 2002–2003, 14 months and 24% for 2004, and 15 months and 26% for 2005–2006 (P < 0.0001 compared to 2000–2001 and 2002–2003; P = 0.07 compared to 2004). The estimated adjusted HR showed that patients diagnosed in 2005–2006 had significantly improved survival when compared to patients diagnosed in 2000–2001 (HR = 0.648, 95% CI 0.604–0.696). The median and 2 year RS of 15 months and 26% in 2005–2006 was similar to the median and 2 year OS of 14.6 months and 26% seen in the EORTC/NCIC phase III study. These results are encouraging and suggest that the current treatment of glioblastoma nationwide is now associated with an improved survival compared to previous time cohorts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11060-011-0738-7

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Koshy, M., Villano, J. L., Dolecek, T. A., Howard, A., Mahmood, U., Chmura, S. J., Weichselbaum, R. R., & McCarthy, B. J.
Venue
Journal of Neuro-Oncology
Published
2011-10-09
Volume
107
Issue
1
Pages
207-212
ISSN
  • 0167-594X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7373
OpenAlex
W1974254625
Cited by
481
References
2
FWCI
6.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.