4.5 Review

Biopsy Versus Subtotal Versus Gross Total Resection in Patients with Low-Grade Glioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 E762-E775

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.163

关键词

Extent of resection; Low-grade glioma; Meta-analysis; Systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The role of the extent of surgical resection (EOR) in clinical outcomes for patients with low-grade glioma requires further examination. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the association between variable degrees of EOR and clinical outcomes for patients with low-grade glioma. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched databases for reports of low-grade glioma EOR. Eligible studies compared patient outcomes, including >= 2 categories of EOR (biopsy, resection of any extent, subtotal resection [STR], or gross total resection [GTR]). Treatment effects were evaluated using pooled estimates, mean differences, or risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effects modeling. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 60 studies with 13,289 patients. Pooled estimates of overall survival (OS) showed an increase from 3.79 years in the biopsy group to 6.68 years in STR to 10.65 years in GTR. OS was favorable with resection of any extent compared with (mean difference, 3.24; 95% CI, 0.64-5.84; P = 0.015). Pooled estimates of seizure control showed an improvement from 47.8% with biopsy to 54.2% with STR and 81.0% with GTR. Compared with STR, GTR delayed malignant transformation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.93; P = 0.032), without increasing postoperative mortality (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.07-1.97; P = 0.250) or morbidity (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.65-2.28; P = 0.540). CONCLUSION: Among patients with low-grade gliomas, greater degrees of safe EOR were associated with longer OS and progression-free survival, better seizure control, and delayed malignant transformation, without increasing mortality or morbidity.

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

4.5
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