A stack of academic neuro-oncology journals on a desk

Key Journals in Neuro-Oncology

Neuro-oncology research reaches clinicians through a relatively small set of peer-reviewed journals. This guide introduces the most influential titles and links to each one's official home.

Dedicated neuro-oncology journals

  • Neuro-Oncology — the flagship journal of the field, publishing major clinical trials, basic science, and consensus guidelines.
  • Neuro-Oncology Practice — a companion title focused on the practical, day-to-day delivery of brain-tumour care.
  • Journal of Neuro-Oncology — a long-running outlet for clinical and laboratory research across tumour types.

The Korean Brain Tumor Society's 2026 historical review traces its journal from a 2002 launch through integration with the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology's journal in 2011 to Brain Tumor Research and Treatment in 2013. Scopus indexing followed in 2025.

Pathology and surgery

  • Acta Neuropathologica — a leading journal for the pathology and molecular biology that now underpins brain-tumour classification.
  • Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery — the principal surgical journals, carrying operative series and outcomes.
  • Child's Nervous System — focused on paediatric neurosurgery and paediatric brain tumours.

Oncology journals of record

  • The Lancet Oncology and Journal of Clinical Oncology — high-impact general-oncology journals that publish practice-changing brain-tumour trials.
  • Neurology India — a widely read regional journal carrying neurosurgical and neuro-oncology work from South Asia.

How brain-tumour classification changed the literature

Over the past fifteen years, brain-tumour diagnosis has shifted from a purely microscopic exercise toward an integrated approach that combines histology with molecular markers. The World Health Organization's classification of central-nervous-system tumours, summarized by the World Health Organization and reflected across these journals, reshaped how diagnoses are reported and how trials are designed. Following these publications is therefore the single best way to keep current with the field.

The Asian Oceanian Society of Neuropathology's ADAPTR recommendations adapt WHO CNS5 classification of adult-type diffuse gliomas to five diagnostic resource levels. A plain-language guide to how brain tumours are classified today explains this approach and the distinction between tumour labels and registry statistics.

An estimand defines the question

A trial result starts with a question about a comparison. The ICH E9(R1) addendum on estimands, adopted on 20 November 2019, sets out five parts of that question: the treatments being compared, the population, the outcome variable, the handling of intercurrent events and the measure used to summarize the comparison. An intercurrent event occurs after treatment begins and affects the interpretation or availability of an outcome measurement. Stopping assigned treatment and starting another therapy are examples. These details define the estimand before a numerical estimate is calculated. The summary might be a difference between group averages, rather than an outcome for one person.

A plain-language account of how an estimand shapes a trial comparison appears among research articles from Promise, a US company working in prescription peptide care. Its worked example separates a calculation that includes what happens after treatment stops from a calculation based on everyone continuing their assigned treatment. These are different questions about the same study, rather than interchangeable descriptions of its outcome. The distinction between an endpoint and an estimand is useful here: the endpoint identifies the outcome, while the estimand also specifies whose outcomes count and the circumstances under which the comparison is being made. Intention to treat describes keeping comparisons tied to assigned groups; the phrase alone does not specify how every later event is addressed.

For brain-tumour research, stopping assigned treatment, beginning another therapy before progression or crossing to the other trial arm can each require explicit handling. Overall survival concerns time alive; progression-free survival concerns time alive without the disease worsening. Neither endpoint name explains whether a comparison includes observations after another therapy begins. The estimand framework names five strategies: treatment policy, hypothetical, composite, while on treatment and principal stratum. These labels distinguish questions about intercurrent events. In survival analyses, a description of subsequent therapy and crossover also gives context to the assumptions behind the comparison. The statistical plan can specify those assumptions before the results are known.

A paper's methods, protocol and statistical analysis plan can supply the detail behind a headline figure. Relevant descriptions identify the intended comparison and the strategy for each intercurrent event. Missing measurements are a separate issue: the analysis may need assumptions about observations that were intended but never collected. Sensitivity analyses examine how conclusions depend on those assumptions. An analysis directed at a different estimand addresses another question, rather than testing the same assumptions.

Finding and reading the research

Many of these journals offer at least some open-access content, and abstracts are freely searchable through public databases such as the National Library of Medicine's PubMed. For clinicians and students without institutional subscriptions, society membership, open-access mirrors, and author-deposited preprints increasingly bridge the gap. When reading a paper, pay particular attention to the patient population, the tumour types and grades studied, and whether findings have been replicated — single studies rarely change practice on their own.

For organizations that curate guidelines and education built on this literature, see our useful links, and for the societies whose members produce much of it, see societies across Asia.