Abstract BACKGROUND More extensive resection leads to improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Insufficient recognition of extent of resection may introduce significant bias in clinical trials. This study aimed to systematically characterize the terminology used to describe resection in neuro-oncological studies. METHODS We conducted a comprehensive review of the PubMed database to identify neuro-oncological trials between January 1966 and January 2024. We selected studies providing information on extent of resection for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in adults. A standardized set of semantic and clinical variables was extracted for each study. RESULTS We screened a total of 1862 neuro-oncological studies, and 117 studies comprising 44 prospective interventional trials and 73 retrospective studies met our inclusion criteria. While a positive association between outcome and more extensive resection was almost universally reported, a broad range of 15 different semantic terms were used to describe extent of resection (e.g., “complete/incomplete”, “gross-total/subtotal”, or “total/partial” resection). Reflecting this inconsistent terminology, only 60 studies (60/117, 51%) provided explicit definitions for categorizing extent of resection. Of these 60 studies, 17 (17/60, 28%) used subjective measurements including intraoperative estimations for extent of resection, while 43 studies (43/60, 72%) relied on objective measurements of volumetrics on pre- and post-operative imaging. There was no difference in the number of objective definitions between prospective and retrospective studies. However, the number of studies with objective definitions was significantly higher in surgical studies compared to medical neuro-oncological studies and increased over recent years (before 2010: 21%; after 2010: 41%). CONCLUSION The terminology used to describe the extent of resection varies greatly across neuro-oncological studies. To minimize imbalances between study arms and enable comparisons across different institutions, adopting a standardized surgical nomenclature appears essential. The recent RANO resect classification for extent of resection might form the basis for such a standardized terminology.
Read full abstract