A balanced score to predict survival of elderly patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma.
Adjuvant treatment
Elderly
Glioblastoma
Score
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 May 2020
06 May 2020
Historique:
received:
03
01
2020
accepted:
24
04
2020
entrez:
8
5
2020
pubmed:
8
5
2020
medline:
10
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Over the past years, several treatment regimens have been recommended for elderly patients with glioblastoma (GBM), ranging from ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) over monochemotherapy (ChT) to combined radiochemotherapy (RChT). The current guidelines recommend active treatment in elderly patients in cases with a KPS of at least 60%. We established a score for selecting patients with a very poor prognosis from patients with a better prognosis. One hundred eighty one patients ≥65 years old, histologically diagnosed with GBM, were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical characteristics were analysed for their impact on the overall survival (OS). Factors which were significant in univariate analysis (log-rank test, p < 0.05) were included in a multi-variate model (multi-variate Cox regression analysis, MVA). The 9-month OS for the significant factors after MVA (p < 0.05) was included in a prognostic score. Score sums with a median OS of < and > 6 months were summarized as Group A and B, respectively. Age, KPS, MGMT status, the extent of resection, aphasia after surgery and motor dysfunction after surgery were significantly associated with OS on univariate analysis (p < 0.05). On MVA age (p 0.002), MGMT promotor methylation (p 0.013) and Karnofsky performance status (p 0.005) remained significant and were included in the score. Patients were divided into two groups, group A (median OS of 2.7 months) and group B (median OS of 7.8 months). The score was of prognostic significance, independent of the adjuvant treatment regimen. The score distinguishes patients with a poor prognosis from patients with a better prognosis. Its inclusion in future retrospective or prospective trials could help enhance the comparability of results. Before its employment on a routine basis, external validation is recommended.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Over the past years, several treatment regimens have been recommended for elderly patients with glioblastoma (GBM), ranging from ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) over monochemotherapy (ChT) to combined radiochemotherapy (RChT). The current guidelines recommend active treatment in elderly patients in cases with a KPS of at least 60%. We established a score for selecting patients with a very poor prognosis from patients with a better prognosis.
METHODS
METHODS
One hundred eighty one patients ≥65 years old, histologically diagnosed with GBM, were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical characteristics were analysed for their impact on the overall survival (OS). Factors which were significant in univariate analysis (log-rank test, p < 0.05) were included in a multi-variate model (multi-variate Cox regression analysis, MVA). The 9-month OS for the significant factors after MVA (p < 0.05) was included in a prognostic score. Score sums with a median OS of < and > 6 months were summarized as Group A and B, respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Age, KPS, MGMT status, the extent of resection, aphasia after surgery and motor dysfunction after surgery were significantly associated with OS on univariate analysis (p < 0.05). On MVA age (p 0.002), MGMT promotor methylation (p 0.013) and Karnofsky performance status (p 0.005) remained significant and were included in the score. Patients were divided into two groups, group A (median OS of 2.7 months) and group B (median OS of 7.8 months). The score was of prognostic significance, independent of the adjuvant treatment regimen.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The score distinguishes patients with a poor prognosis from patients with a better prognosis. Its inclusion in future retrospective or prospective trials could help enhance the comparability of results. Before its employment on a routine basis, external validation is recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32375830
doi: 10.1186/s13014-020-01549-9
pii: 10.1186/s13014-020-01549-9
pmc: PMC7201994
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
97Références
Acta Oncol. 2013 Jan;52(1):147-52
pubmed: 22686472
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4145-50
pubmed: 26392096
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 5;12(7):e0180457
pubmed: 28678889
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Sep;13(9):916-26
pubmed: 22877848
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Dec 29;13(1):257
pubmed: 30594231
Lancet Oncol. 2009 May;10(5):459-66
pubmed: 19269895
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jul;13(7):707-15
pubmed: 22578793
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2019 Jul 19;20(9):71
pubmed: 31324990
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Aug;15(9):e395-403
pubmed: 25079102
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Feb;25(2):558-564
pubmed: 29159745
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 May 5;85(9):704-10
pubmed: 8478956
Radiat Oncol. 2014 Jun 03;9:128
pubmed: 24893775
Cancer. 2012 Nov 15;118(22):5595-600
pubmed: 22517216
Acta Oncol. 2017 Mar;56(3):422-426
pubmed: 28075197
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Sep 1;51(1):100-7
pubmed: 11516858
Cancer Med. 2018 May;7(5):1742-1749
pubmed: 29573214
J Neurooncol. 2019 Mar;142(1):91-101
pubmed: 30523606
Radiat Oncol. 2013 Jul 03;8:161
pubmed: 23822643
Neurosurgery. 2018 Dec 1;83(6):1241-1248
pubmed: 29462372
Brain Sci. 2018 Jun 30;8(7):
pubmed: 29966347
Neuro Oncol. 2010 Jul;12(7):725-35
pubmed: 20364023
Neuro Oncol. 2013 Aug;15(8):1017-26
pubmed: 23595628
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Apr;123(1):106-111
pubmed: 28302331
JAMA. 2015 Dec 15;314(23):2535-43
pubmed: 26670971
Cancer Treat Rev. 2013 Jun;39(4):350-7
pubmed: 22722053
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Apr;127(1):121-127
pubmed: 29433917
N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356(15):1527-35
pubmed: 17429084
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1027-1037
pubmed: 28296618
Lancet. 2019 Feb 16;393(10172):678-688
pubmed: 30782343
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Nov;129(2):347-351
pubmed: 30236994
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jun 1;24(16):2563-9
pubmed: 16735709
Acta Neuropathol. 2016 Jun;131(6):803-20
pubmed: 27157931
J Neurooncol. 2019 May;142(3):529-536
pubmed: 30790133
J Clin Oncol. 2004 May 1;22(9):1583-8
pubmed: 15051755
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):987-96
pubmed: 15758009
J Neurooncol. 2018 May;138(1):123-132
pubmed: 29392589
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Nov 1;2(11):1460-1469
pubmed: 27310651