Aim: There is little consensus on salvage management of glioblastoma after recurrence, for lack of evidence. Materials & methods: A retrospective study of treatments in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Results: Surgery at recurrence was related to better overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Surgery at recurrence, Karnofsky index, MGMT methylation status, younger age at diagnosis and number of chemotherapy cycles were positive factors for OS and PFS. The benefit of OS was relevant for a second surgery performed at least 9 months after the first one. Systemic treatments after the second surgery were linked to an improved PFS. Conclusion: Younger age, Karnofsky index, MGMT methylation status and a median time between surgeries ≥9 months may be criteria for eligibility for surgery at recurrence.
[Box: see text].

The role of surgery in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) remains a controversial topic. The goal of this study was to perform a case control analysis including time to tumor recurrence as an additional prognostic factor in order to determine which patients benefit most from repeat surgery.
Our brain tumor database was reviewed over a 10-year period for all adult (≥18 years old) patients with primary isocitrate dehydrogenase wildtype GBM who received surgery for recurrent disease. These patients were then age, sex, and treatment matched to case controls from our institution who received medical therapy for recurrent disease.
A total of 174 adult patients with GBM were included in the study, 87 patients who received surgery for recurrent GBM (surgery cohort) and 87 patients who did not receive surgery for recurrent GBM (nonsurgery cohort). The surgery cohort had longer overall survival (P = 0.0003) and postrecurrence survival (P = 0.001) than the nonsurgery cohort. When the surgery cohort was split into 2 groups on the basis of time to tumor recurrence, the long time to recurrence group (>6 months) demonstrated significantly increased survival compared with the short time to recurrence group (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis of both cohorts demonstrated surgery for recurrent GBM was independently significant after adjusting for age, Karnofsky Performance Scale, and time to tumor recurrence (P < 0.0001).
Surgery for recurrent GBM leads to improved survival independent of age, Karnofsky Performance Scale, and time to tumor recurrence. Patients with time to tumor recurrence >6 months benefit most from additional surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of second surgery for adjacent segment disease (ASD) after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been reported, its risk factors remain elusive. Few studies have had a sufficiently large number of patients, long follow-up time, and high follow-up rate for investigation. To identify non-surgical risk factors of second surgery for ASD following ACDF, the study used a national cohort with comprehensive follow-up.
METHODS: All second ACDF surgery after one year from the first ACDF were identified as a consequence of ASD that required another surgery. A multivariate competing risk survival model, Kaplan-Meier survivorship, and average time to events were calculated.
RESULTS: Among 38,149 patients who had the first ACDF, 1,092 (2.9%) later (mean 4.66 years) received a second ACDF surgery, during the nearly-perfect follow-up of 16 years. Young age and psychiatric disorders were independent risk factors. Patients who were aged under 40, 50, 60 and 70 years were, respectively, 4.56, 4.09, 3.09 and 2.17 times more likely than those older than 70 years. Also, patients with depression or psychoses were, respectively, 1.42 and 1.45 times more likely to have second surgery for ASD. (all p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Young age and psychiatric disorders are independent risk factors of second ACDF surgery for ASD. Personalized strategies to ameliorate or postpone the development of ASD are therefore warranted for patients who need ACDF surgery.

Studies looking at the benefit of surgery at first relapse (second surgery) for recurrent glioblastoma were confounded by including patients with varying grades of glioma, performance status and extent of resection. This case-controlled study aims to remove these confounders to assess the survival impact of second surgery in recurrent glioblastoma. Retrospective data on patients with glioblastoma recurrence at two tertiary Australian hospitals from July 2009 to April 2015 was reviewed. Patients who had surgery at recurrence were matched with those who did not undergo surgery at recurrence, based on the extent of their initial resection and age. Overall survival (OS1 assessed from initial diagnosis and OS2 from the date of recurrence) as well as functional outcomes after resection were analysed. There were 120 patients (60 in each institution); median age at diagnosis was 56 years. Median OS1 was 14 months (95% CI 11.5-15.7) versus 22 months (95% CI 18-25) in patients who did not undergo second surgery and those with surgery at recurrence. OS2 was improved by second surgery (4.7 vs 9.6, HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38-0.72, P < 0.001), and by chemotherapy, given at recurrence, (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.92, P = 0.03). After second surgery, 80% did not require rehabilitation and 61% were independently mobile. Second surgery for recurrent glioblastoma was associated with a survival advantage. Chemotherapy independent of surgery, also improved survival. Functional outcomes were encouraging. More research is required in the era of improved surgical techniques and new antineoplastic therapies.