4.6 Review

Reoperation for Recurrent High-Grade Glioma: A Current Perspective of the Literature

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 75, 期 5, 页码 491-499

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000486

关键词

Extent of resection; High-grade glioma; Reoperation; Salvage therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimal treatment for recurrent high-grade glioma continues to evolve. Currently, however, there is no consensus in the literature on the role of reoperation in the management of these patients. In this analysis, we reviewed the literature to examine the role of reoperation in patients with World Health Organization grade III or IV recurrent gliomas, focusing on how reoperation affects outcome, perioperative complications, and quality of life. An extensive literature review was performed through the use of the PubMed and Ovid Medline databases for January 1980 through August 2013. A total 31 studies were included in the final analysis. Of the 31 studies with significant data from single or multiple institutions, 29 demonstrated a survival benefit or improved functional status after reoperation for recurrent high-grade glioma. Indications for reoperation included new focal neurological deficits, tumor mass effect, signs of elevated intracranial pressure, headaches, increased seizure frequency, and radiographic evidence of tumor progression. Age was not a contraindication to reoperation. Time interval of at least 6 months between operations and favorable performance status (Karnofsky Performance Status score >= 70) were important predictors of benefit from reoperation. Extent of resection at reoperation improved survival, even in patients with subtotal resection at initial operation. Careful patient selection such as avoiding those individuals with poor performance status and bevacizumab within 4 weeks of surgery is important. Although limited to retrospective analysis and patient selection bias, mounting evidence suggests a survival benefit in patients receiving a reoperation at the time of high-grade glioma recurrence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据