This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
When I first invited a controversy on the management of low-grade glioma, I had difficulty finding two contributors who would argue contrary views. The two individuals who finally agreed to address the issue discussed it with each other and coauthored a consensus.
Declaring a consensus invites its overthrow. Although Shaw's arguments do not rebut the position argued and reaffirmed by Cairncross and Laperriere, his arguments do provide a rationale for a more aggressive approach.
Where there is uncertainty about the outcome, controlled studies are justified. Probably all contributors would agree on the need to test their respective approaches prospectively. In this we may have reached yet another consensus, subject to further controversy.—
Hachinski V. Low-Grade Gliomas: To Treat or Not to Treat? A Consensus Challenged. Arch Neurol. 1990;47(10):1140. doi:10.1001/archneur.1990.00530100110025
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: