4.6 Article

Impact of repeated operations for progressive low-grade gliomas

期刊

EJSO
卷 46, 期 12, 页码 2331-2337

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.07.013

关键词

Low-grade; Glioma; Resection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Maximal, aggressive resection of diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGG) is well established as the standard of care in neuro-oncology. The role of repeat resection for tumor progression is unclear. Objective: To assess the role of repeated operation for DLGG, and the effect on malignant transformation and survival. Methods: We conducted a historical cohort study in which all patients undergoing multiple resections of DLGG between the years 1995-2019 were evaluated for overall survival (OS) and time to transformation (TTT). We then compared the outcome of this group with that of a matched control group comprised of patients who underwent only one operation despite being eligible for repeat surgery at tumor progression, but had received non-surgical oncological therapy or declined additional treatment. Results: Of 607 patients in our departmental DLGG database, 93 patients underwent 2 or more surgeries and had sufficient follow-up and imaging data to be included in the study group. Thirty-eight patients were included in the matched control group. Early (less than 1 year) progression was associated with decreased survival and shorter TTT in the study group. Patients undergoing multiple resections had significantly longer TTT and OS compared to patients who underwent a single surgery. This effect was especially noted in patients who had radiological evidence of tumor transformation. Conclusions: Repeated resections of LGG are safe and offer survival benefit in select patients. Early progression following resection is associated with worse prognosis. Patients with evidence of radiological transformation may benefit the most from re-resection. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

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