ArticleActa neurochirurgica2026
Laser interstitial thermal therapy for IDH wild-type recurrent glioblastoma: a Scandinavian two-center cohort study.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy for High-Grade Gliomas: Current Evidence, Clinical Applications and Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Biopsy with same-session MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy versus biopsy alone in patients with primary unresectable glioblastoma: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundManagement of recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) remains challenging, particularly for deep-seated or eloquent recurrences not amenable to open surgery, and no standardized effective treatment exists for recurrent disease. European data on MR-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) are scarce. This study presents the first Scandinavian experience with LITT for IDH-wild-type rGBM, within publicly funded healthcare systems providing population-wide access to care.
methodsRetrospective data from 30 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed IDH-wild-type rGBM treated with LITT at two Scandinavian centers between January 2019 and May 2024 were analyzed. Demographics, ECOG performance status, procedural parameters, adverse events, and survival outcomes were collected. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
resultsMean age was 57 years (SD 10.2); 83% had pre-LITT ECOG 0. Complete and ≥ 90% ablation of contrast enhancement was achieved in 83% and 97% of cases, respectively. Median hospital stay was 1 day, with 87% discharged by day 2. Adverse events occurred in 33%, predominantly transient neurological deficits (27%) and infections (7%); 10% had persistent deficits. Median OS after LITT was 13.5 months (95% CI 11.6-20.5) and median PFS was 4.3 months (95% CI 2.6-9.1); 37% remained progression-free at 6 months.
conclusionsLITT was feasible and well tolerated in this two-center Scandinavian cohort, with short hospitalization and low morbidity. Survival outcomes were within the range reported in previous international series. While these findings provide preliminary real-world data on LITT use within Scandinavian publicly funded healthcare systems, the limited sample size and retrospective design preclude definitive conclusions. Prospective, controlled studies are warranted to clarify the clinical role of LITT in recurrent glioblastoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.