Background
Methods
Data collection
No | Age/sex | Symptoms/signs | Localization | Tumor size (cm3) | Pathology | % of resection | No. of biopsies |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 42/M | Seizure | RF | 15.732 | AA (WHO III) | 100 | 4 |
2 | 71/F | Headache, somnolence | RT/P | 126.759 | GBM | 100 | 2 |
3 | 49/M | Recurrent | RF | 26.4 | DA (partial AA, WHO III) | 100 | 7 |
4 | 62/F | Aphasia, right prosopolegia | LF | 68.04 | GBM | 100 | 3 |
5 | 48/F | Headache, left hemiparesis | LF/T/I | 84.48 | GBM | 100 | 5 |
6 | 66/M | Headache, somnolence | LP/O | 122.4 | GBM | 88.6 | 6 |
7 | 36/F | Headache, IICP | RF/T | 28.7 | GA (partial AA, WHO III) | 100 | 2 |
8 | 50/F | Headache, left hemiparesis, IICP | RF | 37.44 | GBM | 100 | 2 |
9 | 71/F | Left hemiparesis | LF/P | 36 | GBM | 100 | 5 |
10 | 49/M | Seizure | RF | 70.119 | OD (WHO III) | 100 | 5 |
11 | 35/M | Seizure | LF | 49.02 | OD (WHO III) | 100 | 2 |
12 | 49/F | Recurrent | RF/T/I | 94.875 | rGBM | 99.6 | 4 |
13 | 41/F | Headache, aphasia | LF/T/P | 81.567 | AA (WHO III) | 100 | 3 |
14 | 61/F | Seizure | RF/T/I | 21.06 | DA (partial AA, WHO III) | 100 | 2 |
15 | 26/F | Seizure | LF | 44 | OD (WHO III) | 100 | 4 |
16 | 34/F | Recurrent | LF | 13.888 | rGBM | 100 | 8 |
17 | 45/M | Seizure, left hemiparesis | RP | 36 | AA (WHO III) | 100 | 2 |
18 | 32/M | Seizure, right tendon hyperreflexia | LF | 13.32 | GBM | 100 | 3 |
Selected criteria [8]
Exclusion standard
Definition description
Total resection criteria for surgery and post-operation
The method of developing FLS in operation
Procedure control
The use of neuronavigation in surgery
Combined use of electrophysiological monitoring in operation [10]
Tumor resection during surgery
Retention of pathological specimens
Experiment main reagents
Experimental main equipment
Specimen treatment
Immunohistochemical staining (en vision method)
Results interpretation and evaluation
Postoperative follow-up
Statistical analysis
Results
General information results
Fluorescence imaging results
Surgical results
Follow-up results
Pathological examination results
Relationship between the expression of GFAP and fluorescence levels of MG (Table 2, Fig. 4, Fig. 5)
Items | Fluorescence levels | Degree of freedom |
χ
2
|
p
| ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
None | Low | Bright | ||||
GFAP (+) | 17 | 15 | 29 | 2 | 0.627 | 0.731 |
GFAP (−) | 2 | 3 | 3 | |||
WHO III | 12 | 7 | 12 | 2 | 3.531 | 0.171 |
WHO IV | 7 | 11 | 20 |
The relationship between WHO grading and fluorescence levels (Table 2)
Ki-67 LI relation to fluorescence levels (Table 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5)
Ki-67 LI % | Fluorescence degree | Degree of freedom |
χ
2
|
p
| ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
None | Low | Bright | ||||
< 20 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 14.678 | 0.005 |
20–40 | 9 | 8 | 9 | |||
≧ 40 | 3 | 7 | 21 |