Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Recurrence distance analysis for clinical target volume optimization in glioblastoma.

Created on 23 Aug 2026

Authors

Patrick L Y Tang, Marion Smits, Erik D van Werkhoven, Remi A Nout, Esther A H Warnert, Alejandra Méndez Romero

Published in

Clinical and translational radiation oncology. Volume 61. Pages 101258. Epub Aug 12, 2026.

Abstract

To analyze the pattern of failure in patients with glioblastoma through recurrence distance analysis, and to evaluate the feasibility of reduced and personalized clinical target volume (CTV-)margins.
This study included 201 patients with IDH-wildtype glioblastoma who received standard chemoradiation between 2012 and 2022 and subsequently developed tumor recurrence. From these patients, clinical variables, radiotherapy treatment plans, and imaging data were collected. The recurrence distance was defined as the minimum isotropic expansion from the gross tumor volume (GTV) required to encompass 80% of the recurrence volume (RD80). Multiple linear regression modeling with backward elimination was performed to identify variables that correlate with the RD80.
Median time between the last radiotherapy fraction and progressive disease was 6.8 months (IQR: 4.1-11.8 months). The median RD80 was 1.2 mm (IQR: 0-6.0 mm). For 80% of the patients in our cohort, the RD80 was ≤10.4 mm. In the final multiple linear regression model, the log-transformed GTV volume (β = -0.70, p = 3.9e-7), involvement of the subventricular zone (β = 0.53, p = 0.019) and involvement of the subgranular zone (β = 0.51, p = 0.032) were significantly associated with the log-transformed RD80.
This work highlights the potential of reduced CTV-margins in patients with glioblastoma, supporting further prospective evaluation.

PMID:
42633158
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 23 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 8
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement