| Literature DB >> 26029663 |
Shaakir Hasan1, Eda Chen1, Rachelle Lanciano2, Jun Yang2, Alex Hanlon3, John Lamond2, Stephen Arrigo2, William Ding2, Michael Mikhail1, Arezoo Ghaneie1, Luther Brady2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for salvage treatment of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is gross total resection and adjuvant chemoradiation for operable patients. Limited evidence exists to suggest that any particular treatment modality improves survival for recurrent GBM, especially if inoperable. We report our experience with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (fSRT) with and without chemo/immunotherapy, identifying prognostic factors associated with prolonged survival.Entities:
Keywords: glioblastoma multiforme; glioblastoma radiosurgery; glioblastoma stereotactic; recurrent glioblastoma; salvage stereotactic
Year: 2015 PMID: 26029663 PMCID: PMC4432688 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Patient characteristics.
| Number of patients | 19 | |
| Median age | 55 | (28–78) |
| Males | 13 | (68%) |
| Females | 6 | (32%) |
| ECOG 0–1 | 15 | (79%) |
| ECOG 2+ | 4 | (21%) |
| RPA <5 | 9 | (47%) |
| RPA ≥5 | 10 | (53%) |
| Median time to recurrence in mo (range) | 16 | (2–122) |
| Mean survival from EoT in mo (range) | 11.8 | (0.6–58) |
| Median follow-up in mo | 5.3 | (0.6–58) |
| Frontal | 9 | (47%) |
| Temporal | 6 | (32%) |
| Parietal | 2 | (10.5%) |
| Occipital | 2 | (10.5%) |
| Total resection | 7 | (37%) |
| Subtotal resection | 8 | (32%) |
| Resection (unknown) | 4 | (21%) |
| Conventional RT | 19 | (100%) |
| Median initial dose in Gy (range) | 60 | (54–60) |
| Systemic therapy | 19 | (100%) |
| Surgery | 3 | |
| Systemic therapy | 14 | |
| Temozolomide | 7 (2 before RT, 5 after) | |
| Bevacizumab | 9 (3 before RT, 6 after RT) | |
| 125I-mAb 425 | 6 (3 before RT, 3 after RT) | |
| Mean CTV in cc (range) | 35 ± 40 (0.9–151.7) | |
| Mean dose (range) | 25 ± 4 (18–35) | |
| Mean dose per fraction (range) | 5.3 ± 1.3 (4–10) | |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; RPA, recursive partitioning analysis for glioblastoma multiforme; mo, months; RT, radiotherapy; Gy, Gray; CTV, clinical target volume; EoT, end of treatment.
Figure 1Survival plot for all patients. EOT SRS, end of treatment with stereotactic radiosurgery.
Univariate Cox regression models for overall survival.
| Variable | Hazard ratio | |
|---|---|---|
| Non-frontal tumor | 2.78 (0.99–7.81) | |
| No systemic therapy | 3.93 (1.16–13.32) | |
| No bevacizumab | 3.31 (1.15–9.58) | |
| RPA ≥5 | 5.78 (1.57–21.28) | |
| Time to recurrence <16 months | 5.69 (1.31–24.81) | |
| ECOG >1 | 11.8 (2.54–55.16) | |
| CTV >36 cc | 6.28 (1.80–21.9) | |
| Age >60 | 0.42 | 2.19 (0.81–5.94) |
RPA, recursive partitioning analysis for glioblastoma multiforme; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; CTV, clinical target volume.
Bold indicates statistical significance.
.
.
Figure 2Months of freedom of death from EOT fSRT by frontal location. Solid line, frontally located tumor; dotted line, non-frontally located tumor; EOT, end of treatment; fSRT, fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy.
Figure 9Months of freedom of death from EOT fSRT by time to recurrence. Solid line, recurrence less than or equal to 16 months since initial diagnosis; dotted line, recurrence greater than 16 months since initial diagnosis; EOT, end of treatment; fSRT, fractionated stereotactic.
Review of the literature.
| Reference | Med. dose (range) | No. of Fx | Median BED | Med. size (range) | ReOp rate | Systemic therapy rate | Med. OS from RT (mo) | 1-Year OS (%) | 2-Year OS (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combs et al. ( | 32 | 15 | 1 | 63.75 | 10 | 0 | – | 7 | 28 | – |
| Patel et al. ( | 26 | 18 (12–20) | 1 | 75.6 | 10 (1–60) | 11 | – | 8.4 | – | – |
| Lederman et al. ( | 88 | 24 | 4 | 43.2 | 33 (2–50) | 12 | – | 7 | 17 | 3.4 |
| Hall et al. ( | 26 | 20 | 1 | – | 28 | 31 | – | 7.5 | 15 | 0 |
| Shrieve et al. ( | 86 | 13 (6–20) | 1 | 41.6 | 10 (2–83) | – | – | 10.2 | 45 | 19 |
| Mahajan et al. ( | 41 | – | 1 | – | 5 (1–16) | – | – | 11 | 29 | – |
| Kong et al. ( | 65 | 16 | 1 | 60.8 | – | – | 49 | 13 | 20.5 | – |
| Larson et al. ( | 14 | 12–20 | 1 | – | 8 (2–30) | – | 100 | 9.5 | – | – |
| Yazici et al. ( | 37 | 30 (14–32) | 1–5 | 48 | 24 (2–81) | – | – | 10.6 | – | – |
| Martinez et al. ( | 46 | 18 (14–20) | 1 | 75.6 | 6 | 43 | – | 7.5 | 40 | 16 |
| Greenspoon et al. ( | 31 | 25–35 | 5 | 40–56 | 12 | 0 | 100 | 9 | – | – |
| Current study | 19 | 25 (18–30) | 5 | 40 | 24 | 21 | 74 | 5.3 | 26 | 13 |
.
.