Purpose Recurrence in high-grade glioma (HGG) predominantly occurs within the high-dose radiation field, raising the question of whether treatment failure reflects limitations in radiation target delineation or is driven by intrinsic tumor biology. This study evaluated recurrence patterns following standard chemoradiotherapy and their treatment implications.

Material and Methods This retrospective single-center study included 41 patients with histologically confirmed HGG treated with surgery followed by radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). Patients were followed through August 2018; those with recurrence were included in the analysis. Recurrence patterns were classified based on their spatial relationship to the 60 Gy isodose line as central, in-field, marginal, or distant. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.

Results The most common pattern of recurrence was central (15 patients, 36.5%), followed by in-field (11, 26.8%), distant (6, 14.6%), marginal (5, 12.1%), and multicentric (4, 9.8%). Central and in-field recurrences (local failures) accounted for 26 patients (63%). Median overall survival (OS) was 27 months, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12 months. Survival differed significantly by recurrence pattern (log-rank p = 0.018), with marginal recurrence associated with more favorable outcomes.

Conclusion The predominance of central and in-field recurrences within the high-dose region suggests that treatment failure in HGG is not solely explained by inadequate target delineation and may also be driven, in part, by intrinsic tumor biology, including radioresistant subpopulations and tumor heterogeneity. Future strategies may benefit from incorporating biologically guided approaches alongside optimization of radiation treatment parameters.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Institutional Review Board of Max Cancer Centre, Saket, New Delhi, India granted ethical approval for this retrospective study (Approval No: IEC/2025/ONC/112) and waived the requirement for informed consent due to the use of de-identified patient data.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to institutional policies but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.