Table 4 Compare our cohort with previous studies used multimodal techniques under GA or AC
Studies | Design | N | GA or AC | Only HGG | 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) |
Peruzzi 2011 [53] | Case control | 22 | GA | No, HGG = 19 | NR | 100% | 18.2%c | 18.2%c | NR | NR |
22 | AC | No, HGG = 20 | NR | 100% | 0c | 0c | NR | NR | ||
Pichierri 2019 [54] | Case control | 26 | GA | No, HGG = 15 | NR | 60% | 0c | 0c | NR | NR |
20 | AC | No, HGG = 9 | NR | 66.7% | 20%c | 0c | 31c | NR | ||
Tuominen 2013 [59] | Case control | 20 | GA | No, HGG = 12 | NR | 55.5%c | 10%c | 15%c | NR | NR |
20 | AC | No, HGG = 13 | NR | 50%c | 10%c | 5%c | NR | NR | ||
Chen 2017 [33] | Retro | 51 | GA | Yes | 96 (86–100)a | 31.4% | 15.7% | 3.9% | 18 (9–42) | 28 (14–49) |
D’Andrea 2015 [34] | Retro | 27 | GA | Yes | NR | 77.8% | 59.3% | 11.1% | NR | 17 (10.2–23.8) |
Saito 2016 [57] | Retro | 18 | AC | No, HGG = 9 | 90% ± 7.1%bc | 5.6%c | 22.2%c | 5.6%c | NR | NR |
Ghinda 2016 [38] | Retro | 106 | AC | No, HGG = 42 | 96.4% ± 9.1%b | 60.4%c | 37.4%c | 7.7%c | NR | NR |
Lu 2013 [44] | Pros | 30 | AC | No, HGG = 11 | 100 (73.9–100)ac | 81.8% | 40%c | 6.7%c | NR | NR |
Mathias 2016 [46] | Retro | 18 | AC | No, HGG = 8 | NR | 66.7%c | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Maldaun 2014 [45] | Retro | 42 | AC | No, HGG = 28 | 90ac | 42.8% | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Motomura 2017 [47] | Retro | 33 | AC | No, HGG = 11 | NR | 45.5%c | 30.3%c | 12.1%c | NR | NR |
Leon-Rojas 2020 [43] | Pros | 46 | AC | No, HGG = 28 | NR | 68%c | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Meta-analysis of GA | / | / | / | / | / | 55.7% (95%CI 32.0–79.3%)c | 22.1% (95%CI 2.4–41.8%)c | 14.0% (95%CI 5.8–22.1%)c | / | / |
Meta-analysis of AC | / | / | / | / | / | 53.4% (95%CI 35.5–71.2%)c | 26.4% (95%CI 15.5–37.2%)c | 7.5% (95%CI 3.7–11.2%)c | / | / |