Coevolution of Peer-Reviewed Literature and Clinical Practice in High-Grade Glioma Resection

Background The paradigm of evidence-based medicine dictates that clinical practice should reflect the shifting landscape of the peer-reviewed literature. Here, we examined the extent to which this premise is fulfilled as it pertains to the surgical resection of high-grade gliomas (HGGs). Objective We assessed trends in published literature regarding HGG survival after resection in conjunction with trends in clinical practice patterns of HGG resection. Methods We performed a comprehensive PubMed search to identify articles that examined whether gross total resection (GTR) improves HGG survival. Temporal trends in the literature were compared with rates of GTR in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, the Veterans Health Administration database, and published data series from academic neuro-oncology centers. Results Before 2000, the ratio of articles supporting survival benefit of GTR relative to those not supporting it ranged from approximately 1:5 to 1:1. Since 2000, this ratio has steadily increased such that by the post-2013 period, 32 of the 33 published articles (>30:1) supported the survival benefit of GTR. Although the frequency of GTR increased during the 2000–2004 period in the SEER and Veterans Health Administration database, no further increase in the frequency of GTR was observed thereafter. In contrast, resection rates in academic neuro-oncology centers continued to increase subsequent to 2004. Conclusions Our results indicate that clinical practice patterns mirror publication patterns for HGG resection, suggesting that neurosurgical oncology is a field in which clinical practice is informed by the peer-reviewed literature.