Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 22, 2026
Primary Orthotopic Glioma Xenografts Recapitulate Infiltrative Growth and Isocitrate Dehydrogenase I Mutation
Published on: January 14, 2014
Prognostic Factors and Resectability Predictors in Insular Gliomas: A Systematic Review
Ariadni Papadopoulou1, Niraj S Kumar1
1Division of Medicine, University College London Medical School, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Background:
Insular gliomas (INGs) remain a surgically intimidating glioma subgroup encased by eloquent cortical parcels and white matter language tracts, and traversed by multiple middle cerebral artery branches. The predictive power of prognostic factors affecting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and resectability of INGs remain disputed. This comprehensive systematic review analyses prognostic factors and resectability predictors of INGs substantiating pragmatic management options.
Materials And Methods:
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) and the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines. The PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched in April 2022. All clinical studies with ≥10 patients harboring INGs with any intervention and reporting predictors of OS, PFS, and tumor resectability in INGs were included. Molecular ING prognosticators were also included. Studies combining insular and other gliomas analysis, case studies, experimental and animal studies, conference abstracts, letters to the editor, and articles in other languages were excluded.
Results:
Of the 2,384 articles returned, 27 fulfilled the inclusion criteria totaling 1,985 patients. The review yielded 18 OS and 17 PFS prognosticators. These were classified as preoperative (radiologic; clinical), intraoperative, and postoperative (molecular; histopathologic; clinical) prognosticators. In addition, 21 resectability predictors were categorized as preoperative (radiologic; clinical), intraoperative (surgical approach and assistive technology), and postoperative (histopathologic; clinical). The quality assessment revealed 24/27 studies had low risk of bias. One study with moderate and two studies with high risk of bias were included.
Conclusion:
Negative prognosticators reported in ≥2 studies included putaminal or paralimbic involvement and higher tumor grade, while seizures at presentation, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation, increased extent of resection, and higher Karnofsky Performance Status preoperatively and at 3 months postoperation were positive prognosticators. Resectability predictors reported in ≥2 studies included the positive predictors of zone I/zone IV tumor location and intraoperative imaging use and the negative predictor of encased lenticulostriate arteries. Paralimbic INGs are not a single entity with homogeneous prognosis. Integration of identified prognosticators in a prospective trial to devise a grading system for INGs can improve clinical decision-making.
