Prognostic factors and survival of recurrent glioblastoma: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : Glioblastoma is a highly aggressive brain cancer with poor prognosis. Recurrence is common, and survival post-recurrence is limited. Identifying prognostic factors for recurrent glioblastoma can optimize treatment and improve outcomes. Aim : This systematic review analyzed the clinical, molecular, and treatment-related variables that influence survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Materials and methods : A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest databases included studies from the past decade, assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results : Sixteen studies were analyzed, highlighting age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), molecular markers (MGMT promoter methylation, IDH mutations, TERT promoter mutations, TP53 alterations, ATRX loss, and Ki-67 expression), and surgical resection extent as key prognostic factors. Younger patients with higher KPS scores and favorable molecular markers had better survival. Molecular profiling and maximal resection correlated with improved overall survival (OS). Salvage therapies like chemotherapy and re-resection provided marginal benefits, with variability based on patient demographics and tumor genetics. Conclusion : Age, KPS, molecular markers, and surgical resection extent significantly predict survival in recurrent glioblastoma. The review underscores the importance of molecular profiling for personalized treatment, though current salvage therapies show limited effectiveness. Innovative approaches are needed to enhance outcomes for this aggressive disease. Abbreviations used in the article: BSC : best supportive care; CRE : complete resection of enhancing tumor; DFS : disease-free survival; GBM : glioblastoma; GTR : gross total resection; KPS : Karnofsky Performance Status; NOS : Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; OS : overall survival; PFS : progression-free survival; rGBM : recurrent glioblastoma multiforme; RTOG–RPA : Radiation Therapy Oncology Group – Recursive Partitioning Analysis; TTF : tumor-treating fields
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".