BACKGROUND: The most-used prognostic scheme for malignant gliomas included only patients aged 18 to 70 years. The purpose of this study was to develop a prognostic model for patients ≥70 years of age with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. METHODS: A total of 437 patients ≥70 years of age with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, pooled from 2 tertiary academic institutions, was identified for recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). The resulting prognostic model, based on the final pruned RPA tree, was validated using 265 glioblastoma patients ≥70 years of age from a data set independently compiled by a French consortium. RESULTS: RPA produced 9 terminal nodes, which were pruned to 4 prognostic subgroups with markedly different median survivals: subgroup I = patients <75.5 years of age who underwent surgical resection (9.3 months); subgroup II = patients ≥75.5 years of age who underwent surgical resection (6.4 months); subgroup III = patients with Karnofsky performance status of 70 to 100 who underwent biopsy only (4.6 months); and subgroup IV = patients with Karnofsky performance status <70 who underwent biopsy only (2.3 months). Application of this prognostic model to the French cohort also resulted in significantly different (P < .0001) median survivals for subgroups I (8.5 months), II (7.7 months), III (4.3 months), and IV (3.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: This model divides elderly glioblastoma patients into prognostic subgroups that can be easily implemented in both the patient care and the clinical trial settings. This purely clinical prognostic model serves as a backbone for the future incorporation of the increasing number of potential molecular prognostic markers.
BACKGROUND: The most-used prognostic scheme for malignant gliomas included only patients aged 18 to 70 years. The purpose of this study was to develop a prognostic model for patients ≥70 years of age with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. METHODS: A total of 437 patients ≥70 years of age with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, pooled from 2 tertiary academic institutions, was identified for recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). The resulting prognostic model, based on the final pruned RPA tree, was validated using 265 glioblastomapatients ≥70 years of age from a data set independently compiled by a French consortium. RESULTS: RPA produced 9 terminal nodes, which were pruned to 4 prognostic subgroups with markedly different median survivals: subgroup I = patients <75.5 years of age who underwent surgical resection (9.3 months); subgroup II = patients ≥75.5 years of age who underwent surgical resection (6.4 months); subgroup III = patients with Karnofsky performance status of 70 to 100 who underwent biopsy only (4.6 months); and subgroup IV = patients with Karnofsky performance status <70 who underwent biopsy only (2.3 months). Application of this prognostic model to the French cohort also resulted in significantly different (P < .0001) median survivals for subgroups I (8.5 months), II (7.7 months), III (4.3 months), and IV (3.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: This model divides elderly glioblastomapatients into prognostic subgroups that can be easily implemented in both the patient care and the clinical trial settings. This purely clinical prognostic model serves as a backbone for the future incorporation of the increasing number of potential molecular prognostic markers.
Authors: Jacob G Scott; John H Suh; Paul Elson; Gene H Barnett; Michael A Vogelbaum; David M Peereboom; Gene H J Stevens; Heinrich Elinzano; Samuel T Chao Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Vonetta L Williams; John L Maldonado; Dilip Shahani; Heather G Stockwell; Marc Chamberlain; Andrew E Sloan Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Anthony J Paravati; Dwight E Heron; Douglas Landsittel; John C Flickinger; Arlan Mintz; Yi-Fan Chen; M Saiful Huq Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: L Fariselli; V Pinzi; I Milanesi; A Silvani; M Marchetti; M Farinotti; A Salmaggi Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-04-28 Impact factor: 3.621
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
Authors: Katherine S Panageas; Anne S Reiner; Fabio M Iwamoto; Timothy F Cloughesy; Kenneth D Aldape; Andreana L Rivera; April F Eichler; David N Louis; Nina A Paleologos; Barbara J Fisher; Lynn S Ashby; J Gregory Cairncross; Gloria B Roldán Urgoiti; Patrick Y Wen; Keith L Ligon; David Schiff; H Ian Robins; Brandon G Rocque; Marc C Chamberlain; Warren P Mason; Susan A Weaver; Richard M Green; Francois G Kamar; Lauren E Abrey; Lisa M DeAngelis; Suresh C Jhanwar; Marc K Rosenblum; Andrew B Lassman Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Erin E Karski; Elizabeth McIlvaine; Mark R Segal; Mark Krailo; Holcombe E Grier; Linda Granowetter; Richard B Womer; Paul A Meyers; Judy Felgenhauer; Neyssa Marina; Steven G DuBois Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 3.167