Global Landscape of Glioblastoma Multiforme Management in the Stupp Protocol Era: Systematic Review Protocol

Glioblastoma multiforme is the most common and aggressive primary adult brain neoplasm. The current standard of care is maximal safe surgical resection, radiotherapy with concomitant temozolomide, followed by adjuvant temozolomide according to the Stupp protocol. Although the protocol is well adopted in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about its adoption in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study is to describe a protocol design for a systematic review of published studies outlining the differences in GBM management between HICs and LMICs. A systematic review will be conducted. MedLine via Ovid, Embase and Global Index Medicus will be searched from inception to date in order to identify the relevant studies. Adult patients (>18 years) with histologically confirmed primary unifocal GBM will be included. Surgical and chemoradiation management of GBM tumours will be considered. Commentaries, original research, non-peer reviewed pieces, opinion pieces, editorials and case reports will be included. Primary outcomes will include rates of complications, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), prognosis, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) as well as rate of care abandonment and delay. Secondary outcomes will include the presence of neuro-oncology subspecialty training programs. This systematic review will be the first to compare the current landscape of GBM management in HICs and LMICs, highlighting pertinent themes that may be used to optimise treatment in both financial brackets. The protocol has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42020215843). Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) remains the most common primary adult cerebral neoplasm, with an age-adjusted incidence rate of 3.22 per 100,000 population and a 5-year survival rate of 6.8%Despite the well-evidenced efficacy of Stupp protocol, the implementation of this approach bears an institutional and individual financial burden that is particularly notable in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)This systematic review will be the first to compare the current landscape of GBM management in HICs and LMICs, highlighting pertinent themes that may be used to optimise treatment in both financial brackets.