Table 3 Compare our cohort with previous studies of HGG
Studies | Design | N | GA or AC | Multimodal techniques | EOR (%) | GTR | Temporary language deficit | Permanent language deficit | Median PFS (95%CI) | Median OS (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Our study | Retro | 263 | GA | YES | 100 (98.57–100)a | 73.8% | 17.1% | 9.5% | 16.8 (14.4–19.2) | 23.7 (21.0–26.4) |
Chen 2017c [33] | Retro | 51 | GA | YES | 96 (86–100)a | 31.4% | 15.7% | 3.9% | 18 (9–42) | 28 (14–49) |
Schucht 2012 [58] | Retro | 69 | GA | NO | NR | 76.8% | NR | 10.1% | NR | NR |
Nakajima 2019 [48] | Case control | 30 | GA | NO | 96% ± 9.1%b | NR | 23.3% | NR | NR | NR |
30 | AC | NO | 97% ± 8.7%b | NR | NR | NR | NR | |||
Gerritsen 2019 [37] | Case control | 111 | GA | NO | 79.7%a | NR | 26.8% | 5.4% | NR | 15 (1318) |
37 | AC | NO | 100%a | NR | 10.8% | 0 | NR | 17 (12–36) | ||
Feigl 2010 [36] | Pros | 18 | GA | NO | NR | 64% | 0 | NR | NR | NR |
D’Andrea 2015c [34] | Retro | 27 | GA | YES | NR | 77.8% | 59.3% | 11.1% | NR | 17 (10.2–23.8) |