Evidence Hub

Discrepancies in inter-rater agreement on resectability of recurrent glioblastoma: Complementary post-hoc analysis of the prospective, randomized DIRECTOR trial

Karschnia P, Teske N, Le Rhun E, Wirsching HG, Jakola AS, Roder C, Cahill DP, Vik-Mo EO et al.

Neuro-oncology, 2026

69 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Tumor resection is a prerequisite in many studies of new glioblastoma therapeutics; however, no clear parameters for "resectability" exist. We evaluated inter-rater variability in assessing tumor resectability and potential associations between resectability and survival in a trial cohort of glioblastoma recurrence.

Methods: DIRECTOR (NCT00941460; 9/2009-6/2012) evaluated two dose-dense temozolomide regimens for first recurrent glioblastoma, yielding similar outcomes between arms. Re-resection was allowed before initiation of systemic therapy by institutional decision. Eleven surgical neuro-oncologists (blinded to final outcomes) rated whether a "meaningful resection" was achievable for each recurrent IDH-wildtype glioblastoma based on imaging and clinical data.

Results: MRI scans from 69 patients were available (median age: 58.2 ± 1.1 years, median survival: 10.0 months). Forty patients underwent re-resection (median age: 56.4 ± 1.7 years, median survival: 10.8 months). Surgical decision-making markedly varied between raters, ranging from 30 to 58 of 69 cases being classified as "resectable" (κ = 0.405). In patients who received re-resection, a "meaningful resection" was deemed feasible by >80% of raters in 30/40 cases (75.0%). For patients without re-resection, unanimous agreement on non-resectability occurred in only 3/29 cases (10.4%); and 5/29 tumors (17.2%) were considered resectable by >80% of raters. Knowledge of additional clinical factors virtually…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 69 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free