Patterns of care and clinical outcome in assumed glioblastoma without tissue diagnosis: A population-based study of 131 consecutive patients.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
Brain Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Cytodiagnosis
Diagnosis, Differential
Female
Glioblastoma
/ diagnosis
Humans
Male
Neuroimaging
/ methods
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
/ statistics & numerical data
Prognosis
Radiography
Retrospective Studies
Survival Rate
Sweden
/ epidemiology
Treatment Outcome
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
18
10
2019
accepted:
15
01
2020
entrez:
14
2
2020
pubmed:
14
2
2020
medline:
7
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Elderly patients with glioblastoma and an accumulation of negative prognostic factors have an extremely short survival. There is no consensus on the clinical management of these patients and many may escape histologically verified diagnosis. The primary aim of this study was to characterize this particular subgroup of patients with radiological glioblastoma diagnosis without histological verification. The secondary aim was to evaluate if oncological therapy was of benefit. Between November 2012 and June 2016, all consecutive patients presenting with a suspected glioblastoma in the western region of Sweden were registered in a population-based study. Of the 378 patients, 131 (35%) met the inclusion criteria of the present study by typical radiological features of glioblastoma without histological verification. The clinical characteristics of the 131 patients (72 men, 59 women) were: age ≥ 75 (n = 99, 76%), performance status according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≥ 2 (n = 93, 71%), significant comorbidity (n = 65, 50%) and multilobular tumors (n = 90, 69%). The overall median survival rate was 3.6 months. A subgroup of 44 patients (34%) received upfront treatment with temozolomide, with an overall radiological response rate of 34% and a median survival of 6.8 months, compared to 2.7 months for those receiving best supportive care only. Good performance status and temozolomide treatment were statistically significant favorable prognostic factors, while younger age was not. Thirty-five percent of patients with a radiological diagnosis of glioblastoma in our region lacked histological diagnosis. Apart from high age and poor performance status, they had more severe comorbidities and extensive tumor spread. Even for this poor prognostic group upfront treatment with temozolomide was shown of benefit in a subgroup of patients. Our data illustrate the need of non-invasive diagnostic methods to guide optimal individualized therapy for patients considered too fragile for neurosurgical biopsy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Elderly patients with glioblastoma and an accumulation of negative prognostic factors have an extremely short survival. There is no consensus on the clinical management of these patients and many may escape histologically verified diagnosis. The primary aim of this study was to characterize this particular subgroup of patients with radiological glioblastoma diagnosis without histological verification. The secondary aim was to evaluate if oncological therapy was of benefit.
METHODS
Between November 2012 and June 2016, all consecutive patients presenting with a suspected glioblastoma in the western region of Sweden were registered in a population-based study. Of the 378 patients, 131 (35%) met the inclusion criteria of the present study by typical radiological features of glioblastoma without histological verification.
RESULTS
The clinical characteristics of the 131 patients (72 men, 59 women) were: age ≥ 75 (n = 99, 76%), performance status according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≥ 2 (n = 93, 71%), significant comorbidity (n = 65, 50%) and multilobular tumors (n = 90, 69%). The overall median survival rate was 3.6 months. A subgroup of 44 patients (34%) received upfront treatment with temozolomide, with an overall radiological response rate of 34% and a median survival of 6.8 months, compared to 2.7 months for those receiving best supportive care only. Good performance status and temozolomide treatment were statistically significant favorable prognostic factors, while younger age was not.
CONCLUSION
Thirty-five percent of patients with a radiological diagnosis of glioblastoma in our region lacked histological diagnosis. Apart from high age and poor performance status, they had more severe comorbidities and extensive tumor spread. Even for this poor prognostic group upfront treatment with temozolomide was shown of benefit in a subgroup of patients. Our data illustrate the need of non-invasive diagnostic methods to guide optimal individualized therapy for patients considered too fragile for neurosurgical biopsy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32053655
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228480
pii: PONE-D-19-29131
pmc: PMC7017992
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0228480Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Jul 05;11(7):
pubmed: 31284524
Health Serv Res. 2003 Aug;38(4):1103-20
pubmed: 12968819
World Neurosurg. 2012 Nov;78(5):518-26
pubmed: 22381305
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Mar;51(4):533-42
pubmed: 25661102
Acta Neurol Scand. 2016 Jun;133(6):434-41
pubmed: 26358197
World Neurosurg. 2016 May;89:362-7
pubmed: 26775233
N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356(15):1527-35
pubmed: 17429084
JAMA Neurol. 2015 May;72(5):589-96
pubmed: 25822375
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1027-1037
pubmed: 28296618
Cancer. 2005 Dec 15;104(12):2798-806
pubmed: 16288487
J Neurosurg. 2011 Mar;114(3):587-94
pubmed: 20887095
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 1;81(3):623-30
pubmed: 20888136
Acta Oncol. 2019 Mar;58(3):334-341
pubmed: 30732527
Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5(6):649-55
pubmed: 7165009
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2017 Nov;29(11):739-747
pubmed: 28807361
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4145-50
pubmed: 26392096
World Neurosurg. 2011 Dec;76(6):572-9
pubmed: 22251506
Acta Oncol. 2015 Mar;54(3):377-84
pubmed: 25383446
Cancer. 2009 Aug 15;115(16):3758-66
pubmed: 19484785
Strahlenther Onkol. 2003 Jan;179(1):8-15
pubmed: 12540979
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Sep;13(9):916-26
pubmed: 22877848
J Neurooncol. 2014 Jan;116(2):315-24
pubmed: 24178440
Neurosurgery. 2009 Sep;65(3):463-9; discussion 469-70
pubmed: 19687690
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jul;13(7):707-15
pubmed: 22578793
Neurosurg Rev. 2016 Jan;39(1):55-60; discussion 60-1
pubmed: 26208944
J Neurooncol. 2008 Aug;89(1):97-103
pubmed: 18398569
J Neurooncol. 2017 Aug;134(1):107-118
pubmed: 28527010
Cancer Med. 2018 Oct;7(10):5281-5290
pubmed: 30175510
J Geriatr Oncol. 2016 Nov;7(6):453-456
pubmed: 27478132
Neurooncol Pract. 2019 Jan;6(1):37-46
pubmed: 30740232
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Sep;50(13):2309-18
pubmed: 24972545
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29(22):3050-5
pubmed: 21709196
Neuroepidemiology. 2009;33(1):17-22
pubmed: 19325245
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 4:iv1-iv62
pubmed: 26511214