Francesca Nava1, Irene Tramacere, Andrea Fittipaldo, Maria Grazia Bruzzone, Francesco Dimeco, Laura Fariselli, Gaetano Finocchiaro, Bianca Pollo, Andrea Salmaggi, Antonio Silvani, Mariangela Farinotti, Graziella Filippini. 1. Unit of Neuroepidemiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy (F.N., I.T., A.F., M.F., G.F.); Unit of Neuroradiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy (M.G.B., L.F.); Department of Neurosurgery, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy; Department of Neurological Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical School, Baltimore, Maryland (F.D.); Unit of Molecular Neuro-oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy (G.F.); Unit of Neuropathology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy (B.P.); Department of Neurology, Ospedale Alessandro Manzoni, Lecco, Italy (A.S.); Unit of Clinical Neuro-oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy (A.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective follow-up studies of large cohorts of patients with glioblastoma (GBM) are needed to assess the effectiveness of conventional treatments in clinical practice. We report GBM survival data from the Brain Cancer Register of the Fondazione Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta (INCB) in Milan, Italy, which collected longitudinal data for all consecutive patients with GBM from 1997 to 2010. METHODS: Survival data were obtained from 764 patients (aged>16 years) with histologically confirmed primary GBM who were diagnosed and treated over a 7-year period (2004-2010) with follow-up to April 2012 (cohort II). Equivalent data from 490 GBM patients diagnosed and treated over the preceding 7 years (1997-2003) with follow-up to April 2005 (cohort I) were available for comparison. Progression-free survival (PFS) was available from 361 and 219 patients actively followed up at INCB in cohorts II and I, respectively. RESULTS: Survival probabilities were 54% at 1 year, 21% at 2 years, and 11% at 3 years, respectively, in cohort II compared with 47%, 11%, and 5%, respectively, in cohort I. PFS was 22% and 12% at 1 year in cohorts II and I. Better survival and PFS in cohort II was significantly associated with introduction of the Stupp protocol into clinical practice, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.78 for survival and 0.73 for PFS, or a 22% relative decrease in the risk of death and a 27% relative decrease in the risk of recurrence. After recurrence, reoperation was performed in one-fifth of cohort I and in one-third of cohort II but was not effective (HR, 1.05 in cohort I and 1.02 in cohort II). Second-line chemotherapy, mainly consisting of nitrosourea-based chemotherapy, temozolomide, mitoxantrone, fotemustine, and bevacizumab, improved survival in both cohorts (HR, 0.57 in cohort I and 0.74 in cohort II). Radiosurgery was also effective (HR, 0.52 in cohort II). CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant increase in overall survival, PFS, and survival after recurrence after 2004, likely due to improvements in surgical techniques, introduction of the Stupp protocol as a first-line treatment, and new standard protocols for second-line chemotherapy and radiosurgery after tumor recurrence. In both cohorts, reoperation after tumor recurrence did not improve survival.
BACKGROUND: Prospective follow-up studies of large cohorts of patients with glioblastoma (GBM) are needed to assess the effectiveness of conventional treatments in clinical practice. We report GBM survival data from the Brain Cancer Register of the Fondazione Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta (INCB) in Milan, Italy, which collected longitudinal data for all consecutive patients with GBM from 1997 to 2010. METHODS: Survival data were obtained from 764 patients (aged>16 years) with histologically confirmed primary GBM who were diagnosed and treated over a 7-year period (2004-2010) with follow-up to April 2012 (cohort II). Equivalent data from 490 GBM patients diagnosed and treated over the preceding 7 years (1997-2003) with follow-up to April 2005 (cohort I) were available for comparison. Progression-free survival (PFS) was available from 361 and 219 patients actively followed up at INCB in cohorts II and I, respectively. RESULTS: Survival probabilities were 54% at 1 year, 21% at 2 years, and 11% at 3 years, respectively, in cohort II compared with 47%, 11%, and 5%, respectively, in cohort I. PFS was 22% and 12% at 1 year in cohorts II and I. Better survival and PFS in cohort II was significantly associated with introduction of the Stupp protocol into clinical practice, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.78 for survival and 0.73 for PFS, or a 22% relative decrease in the risk of death and a 27% relative decrease in the risk of recurrence. After recurrence, reoperation was performed in one-fifth of cohort I and in one-third of cohort II but was not effective (HR, 1.05 in cohort I and 1.02 in cohort II). Second-line chemotherapy, mainly consisting of nitrosourea-based chemotherapy, temozolomide, mitoxantrone, fotemustine, and bevacizumab, improved survival in both cohorts (HR, 0.57 in cohort I and 0.74 in cohort II). Radiosurgery was also effective (HR, 0.52 in cohort II). CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant increase in overall survival, PFS, and survival after recurrence after 2004, likely due to improvements in surgical techniques, introduction of the Stupp protocol as a first-line treatment, and new standard protocols for second-line chemotherapy and radiosurgery after tumor recurrence. In both cohorts, reoperation after tumor recurrence did not improve survival.
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John K Park; Tiffany Hodges; Leopold Arko; Michael Shen; Donna Dello Iacono; Adrian McNabb; Nancy Olsen Bailey; Teri Nguyen Kreisl; Fabio M Iwamoto; Joohee Sul; Sungyoung Auh; Grace E Park; Howard A Fine; Peter McL Black Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shannon E Fogh; David W Andrews; Jon Glass; Walter Curran; Charles Glass; Colin Champ; James J Evans; Terry Hyslop; Edward Pequignot; Beverly Downes; Eileen Comber; Mitchell Maltenfort; Adam P Dicker; Maria Werner-Wasik Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Helseth; E Helseth; T B Johannesen; C W Langberg; K Lote; P Rønning; D Scheie; A Vik; T R Meling Journal: Acta Neurol Scand Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 3.209
Authors: Jennifer L Clarke; Michele M Ennis; W K Alfred Yung; Susan M Chang; Patrick Y Wen; Timothy F Cloughesy; Lisa M Deangelis; H Ian Robins; Frank S Lieberman; Howard A Fine; Lauren Abrey; Mark R Gilbert; Minesh Mehta; John G Kuhn; Kenneth D Aldape; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael D Prados Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: N Lonjon; L Bauchet; H Duffau; P Fabbro-Peray; F Segnarbieux; P Paquis; M Lonjon Journal: Neurochirurgie Date: 2009-12-31 Impact factor: 1.553
Authors: Daphne Meza; Danni Wang; Yu Wang; Sabine Borwege; Nader Sanai; Jonathan T C Liu Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Sydney M Evans; Mary Putt; Xiang-Yang Yang; Robert A Lustig; Maria Martinez-Lage; Dewight Williams; Arati Desai; Ronald Wolf; Steven Brem; Cameron J Koch Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 4.130