PURPOSE: Despite initial treatment with surgical resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) virtually always recurs. Surgery is sometimes recommended to treat recurrence. In this study, we sought to devise a preoperative scale that predicts survival after surgery for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The preoperative clinical and radiographic data of 34 patients who underwent re-operation of recurrent GBM tumors were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. The factors associated with decreased postoperative survival (P < .05) were used to devise a prognostic scale which was validated with a separate cohort of 109 patients. RESULTS: The factors associated with poor postoperative survival were: tumor involvement of prespecified eloquent/critical brain regions (P = .021), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) < or = 80 (P = .030), and tumor volume > or = 50 cm(3) (P = .048). An additive scale (range, 0 to 3 points) comprised of these three variables distinguishes patients with good (0 points), intermediate (1 to 2 points), and poor (3 points) postoperative survival (median survival, 10.8, 4.5, and 1.0 months, respectively; P < .001). The scale identified three statistically distinct groups within the validation cohort as well (median survival, 9.2, 6.3, and 1.9 months, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: We devised and validated a preoperative scale that identifies patients likely to have poor, intermediate, and good relative outcomes after surgical resection of a recurrent GBM tumor. Application of this simple scale may be useful in counseling patients regarding their treatment options and in designing clinical trials.
PURPOSE: Despite initial treatment with surgical resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) virtually always recurs. Surgery is sometimes recommended to treat recurrence. In this study, we sought to devise a preoperative scale that predicts survival after surgery for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The preoperative clinical and radiographic data of 34 patients who underwent re-operation of recurrent GBM tumors were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. The factors associated with decreased postoperative survival (P < .05) were used to devise a prognostic scale which was validated with a separate cohort of 109 patients. RESULTS: The factors associated with poor postoperative survival were: tumor involvement of prespecified eloquent/critical brain regions (P = .021), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) < or = 80 (P = .030), and tumor volume > or = 50 cm(3) (P = .048). An additive scale (range, 0 to 3 points) comprised of these three variables distinguishes patients with good (0 points), intermediate (1 to 2 points), and poor (3 points) postoperative survival (median survival, 10.8, 4.5, and 1.0 months, respectively; P < .001). The scale identified three statistically distinct groups within the validation cohort as well (median survival, 9.2, 6.3, and 1.9 months, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: We devised and validated a preoperative scale that identifies patients likely to have poor, intermediate, and good relative outcomes after surgical resection of a recurrent GBM tumor. Application of this simple scale may be useful in counseling patients regarding their treatment options and in designing clinical trials.
Authors: Roger Stupp; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Michael Weller; Barbara Fisher; Martin J B Taphoorn; Karl Belanger; Alba A Brandes; Christine Marosi; Ulrich Bogdahn; Jürgen Curschmann; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Thierry Gorlia; Anouk Allgeier; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; René O Mirimanoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M D Walker; S B Green; D P Byar; E Alexander; U Batzdorf; W H Brooks; W E Hunt; C S MacCarty; M S Mahaley; J Mealey; G Owens; J Ransohoff; J T Robertson; W R Shapiro; K R Smith; C B Wilson; T A Strike Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1980-12-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David N Louis; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Webster K Cavenee; Peter C Burger; Anne Jouvet; Bernd W Scheithauer; Paul Kleihues Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: T Hundsberger; A F Hottinger; U Roelcke; P Roth; D Migliorini; P Y Dietrich; K Conen; G Pesce; E Hermann; A Pica; M W Gross; D Brügge; L Plasswilm; M Weller; P M Putora Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Louis Burt Nabors; Mario Ammirati; Philip J Bierman; Henry Brem; Nicholas Butowski; Marc C Chamberlain; Lisa M DeAngelis; Robert A Fenstermaker; Allan Friedman; Mark R Gilbert; Deneen Hesser; Matthias Holdhoff; Larry Junck; Ronald Lawson; Jay S Loeffler; Moshe H Maor; Paul L Moots; Tara Morrison; Maciej M Mrugala; Herbert B Newton; Jana Portnow; Jeffrey J Raizer; Lawrence Recht; Dennis C Shrieve; Allen K Sills; David Tran; Nam Tran; Frank D Vrionis; Patrick Y Wen; Nicole McMillian; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Marc Zanello; Alexandre Roux; Renata Ursu; Sophie Peeters; Luc Bauchet; Georges Noel; Jacques Guyotat; Pierre-Jean Le Reste; Thierry Faillot; Fabien Litre; Nicolas Desse; Evelyne Emery; Antoine Petit; Johann Peltier; Jimmy Voirin; François Caire; Jean-Luc Barat; Jean-Rodolphe Vignes; Philippe Menei; Olivier Langlois; Edouard Dezamis; Antoine Carpentier; Phong Dam Hieu; Philippe Metellus; Johan Pallud Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 4.130