Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD002034.

Biopsy versus resection for malignant glioma.

Author information

  • 1c/o Edinburgh Centre of Neuro-Oncology, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, EH4 2XU. s.metcalfe@sms.ed.ac.uk

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Patients with isolated supratentorial brain tumours, presumed to be primary on imaging, have two surgical management options - biopsy or resection. Surgical opinions appear to be equally divided when considering the relative risks and benefits of these two procedures.

OBJECTIVES:

To estimate the clinical effectiveness of radical surgical resection compared to simple biopsy in patients with malignant glioma.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

Electronic database searches of COCHRANE CONTROLLED TRIALS REGISTER (including the Cochrane Cancer Network Specialised Register of Trials), MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, EMBASE, BIOSIS and SCIENCE CITATION INDEX. Hand searching the references of all identified studies; hand searching the Journal of Neuro-Oncology over the previous 10 years, including all conference abstracts; personal communication.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised and clinical controlled trials were included if they compared biopsy to resection, or looked at effect of extent of resection on survival, time to progression or quality of life, for malignant glioma patients of all ages.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Studies were to be identified, critically appraised and data extracted by the author (SEM). For dichotomous data, Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were hoped to have been estimated. Normal continuous data were to have been summated using the weighted mean difference (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS:

The electronic database search yielded 2100 citations. Of these, two articles were identified for possible inclusion, however both were excluded. The hand search and personal communication were similarly unproductive. No studies were included in the review and no data was synthesised.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS:

Given that no qualifying studies were identified and because this is an important issue, both in terms of patient risk and benefit and health economics, the author feels it important to conduct a randomised controlled trial in this subject.

PMID:
10796847
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk