Cited by 1,283Glioma Diagnosis and TreatmentOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentMeningioma and schwannoma management

Role of extent of resection in the long-term outcome of low-grade hemispheric gliomas

Open access
Smith, Justin S., Chang, Edward F., Lamborn, Kathleen R., Chang, Susan M., Prados, Michael D., Cha, Soonmee, Tihan, Tarik, VandenBerg, Scott +2 more·2008·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: The prognostic role of extent of resection (EOR) of low-grade gliomas (LGGs) is a major controversy. We designed a retrospective study to assess the influence of EOR on long-term outcomes of LGGs. Patients and Methods: The study population (N = 216) included adults undergoing initial resection of hemispheric LGG. Region-of-interest analysis was performed to measure tumor volumes based on fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery (FLAIR) imaging. Results: Median preoperative and postoperative tumor volumes and EOR were 36.6 cm 3 (range, 0.7 to 246.1 cm 3), 3.7 cm 3 (range, 0 to 197.8 cm 3) and 88.0% (range, 5% to 100%), respectively. There was no operative mortality. New postoperative deficits were noted in 36 patients (17%); however, all but four had complete recovery. There were 34 deaths (16%; median follow-up, 4.4 years). Progression and malignant progression were identified in 95 (44%) and 44 (20%) cases, respectively. Patients with at least 90% EOR had 5- and 8-year overall survival (OS) rates of 97% and 91%, respectively, whereas patients with less than 90% EOR had 5- and 8-year OS rates of 76% and 60%, respectively. After adjusting each measure of tumor burden for age, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), tumor location, and tumor subtype, OS was predicted by EOR (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.972; 95% CI, 0.960 to 0.983; P < .001), log preoperative tumor volume (HR = 4.442; 95% CI, 1.601 to 12.320; P = .004), and postoperative tumor volume (HR = 1.010; 95% CI, 1.001 to 1.019; P = .03), progression-free survival was predicted by log preoperative tumor volume (HR = 2.711; 95% CI, 1.590 to 4.623; P ≤ .001) and postoperative tumor volume (HR = 1.007; 95% CI, 1.001 to 1.014; P = .035), and malignant progression-free survival was predicted by EOR (HR = 0.983; 95% CI, 0.972 to 0.995; P = .005) and log preoperative tumor volume (HR = 3.826; 95% CI, 1.632 to 8.969; P = .002). Conclusion: Improved outcome among adult patients with hemispheric LGG is predicted by greater EOR.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2007.13.9337

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Early maximal safe resection is now favored over watchful waiting for LGGs.

    “Despite historical controversy regarding surgical management of LGGs, early maximal safe resection is now favored over the watchful waiting approach [27,37,38,39,40].”

    From BPC 157 Therapy of Myotendinous Junction Injury in Rats (2025) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Discussion argues strongly for maximal resection, and the conclusion recommends it when feasible for adults with hemispheric LGG. But the Introduction says surgical management remains controversial and that alternatives remain acceptable; the study does not directly compare early resection with watchful waiting or establish that resection is now generally favored. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, J. S., Chang, E. F., Lamborn, K. R., Chang, S. M., Prados, M. D., Cha, S., Tihan, T., VandenBerg, S., McDermott, M. W., & Berger, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • From the Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Tumor Research Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2008-03-10
Volume
26
Issue
8
Pages
1338-1345
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2134942438
Cited by
1,283
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 109 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 86 · 2014: 74 · 2013: 86 · 2012: 78
FWCI
24.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Meningioma and schwannoma management
Keywords
extent of resection, low-grade glioma, overall survival, progression-free survival, tumor volume, prognostic factors, malignant transformation, postoperative deficits, Karnofsky performance status, FLAIR MRI, surgical resection margin, prognostic nomogram, risk stratification, postoperative radiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Astrocytoma, Brain Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Oligodendroglioma, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Survival Rate, Treatment Outcome

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