Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 315

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extent of Resection of Glioblastoma Revisited: Personalized Survival Modeling Facilitates More Accurate Survival Prediction and Supports a Maximum-Safe-Resection Approach to Surgery

Open access
Marko, Nicholas F., Weil, Robert J., Schroeder, Jason L., Lang, Frederick F., Suki, Dima, Sawaya, Raymond E.·2014·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Approximately 12,000 glioblastomas are diagnosed annually in the United States. The median survival rate for this disease is 12 months, but individual survival rates can vary with patient-specific factors, including extent of surgical resection (EOR). The goal of our investigation is to develop a reliable strategy for personalized survival prediction and for quantifying the relationship between survival, EOR, and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Patients and Methods: We used accelerated failure time (AFT) modeling using data from 721 newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma (from 1993 to 2010) to model the factors affecting individualized survival after surgical resection, and we used the model to construct probabilistic, patient-specific tools for survival prediction. We validated this model with independent data from 109 patients from a second institution. Results: AFT modeling using age, Karnofsky performance score, EOR, and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy produced a continuous, nonlinear, multivariable survival model for glioblastoma. The median personalized predictive error was 4.37 months, representing a more than 20% improvement over current methods. Subsequent model-based calculations yield patient-specific predictions of the incremental effects of EOR and adjuvant therapy on survival. Conclusion: Nonlinear, multivariable AFT modeling outperforms current methods for estimating individual survival after glioblastoma resection. The model produces personalized survival curves and quantifies the relationship between variables modulating patient-specific survival. This approach provides comprehensive, personalized, probabilistic, and clinically relevant information regarding the anticipated course of disease, the overall prognosis, and the patient-specific influence of EOR and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The continuous, nonlinear relationship identified between expected median survival and EOR argues against a surgical management strategy based on rigid EOR thresholds and instead provides the first explicit evidence supporting a maximum safe resection approach to glioblastoma surgery.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2013.51.8886

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 315

Metadata

Authors
Marko, N. F., Weil, R. J., Schroeder, J. L., Lang, F. F., Suki, D., & Sawaya, R. E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2014-03-10
Volume
32
Issue
8
Pages
774-782
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2162496354
Cited by
315
References
1
FWCI
14.10
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Extent of Resection of Glioblastoma Revisited: Personalized Survival Modeling Facilitates More Accurate Survival Prediction and Supports a Maximum-Safe-Resection Approach to Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2013.51.8886
The paper
Marko, N. F., Weil, R. J., Schroeder, J. L., Lang, F. F., Suki, D., & Sawaya, R. E. (2014). Extent of Resection of Glioblastoma Revisited: Personalized Survival Modeling Facilitates More Accurate Survival Prediction and Supports a Maximum-Safe-Resection Approach to Surgery. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.51.8886

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.