Literature DB >> 26392096

International Atomic Energy Agency Randomized Phase III Study of Radiation Therapy in Elderly and/or Frail Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme.

Wilson Roa1, Lucyna Kepka2, Narendra Kumar2, Valery Sinaika2, Juliana Matiello2, Darejan Lomidze2, Dalenda Hentati2, Douglas Guedes de Castro2, Katarzyna Dyttus-Cebulok2, Suzanne Drodge2, Sunita Ghosh2, Branislav Jeremić2, Eduardo Rosenblatt2, Elena Fidarova2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The optimal radiotherapy regimen for elderly and/or frail patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma remains to be established. This study compared two radiotherapy regimens on the outcome of these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2010 and 2013, 98 patients (frail = age ≥ 50 years and Karnofsky performance status [KPS] of 50% to 70%; elderly and frail = age ≥ 65 years and KPS of 50% to 70%; elderly = age ≥ 65 years and KPS of 80% to 100%) were prospectively randomly assigned to two arms in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by age (< and ≥ 65 years old), KPS, and extent of surgical resection. Arm 1 received short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy in five daily fractions over 1 week), and arm 2 received commonly used radiotherapy (40 Gy in 15 daily fractions over 3 weeks).
RESULTS: The short-course radiotherapy was noninferior to commonly used radiotherapy. The median overall survival time was 7.9 months (95% CI, 6.3 to 9.6 months) in arm 1 and 6.4 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.6 months) in arm 2 (P = .988). Median progression-free survival time was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 5.9) in arm 1 and 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 5.7) in arm B (P = .716). With a median follow-up time of 6.3 months, the quality of life between both arms at 4 weeks after treatment and 8 weeks after treatment was not different.
CONCLUSION: There were no differences in overall survival time, progression-free survival time, and quality of life between patients receiving the two radiotherapy regimens. In view of the reduced treatment time, the short 1-week radiotherapy regimen may be recommended as a treatment option for elderly and/or frail patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.
© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26392096     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.6606

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  89 in total

1.  Radiation de-intensification for patients with glioblastoma and poor prognostic features--how much do we really know?

Authors:  Brian Michael Alexander
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 2.  Glioblastoma in adults: a Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and European Society of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) consensus review on current management and future directions.

Authors:  Patrick Y Wen; Michael Weller; Eudocia Quant Lee; Brian M Alexander; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Floris P Barthel; Tracy T Batchelor; Ranjit S Bindra; Susan M Chang; E Antonio Chiocca; Timothy F Cloughesy; John F DeGroot; Evanthia Galanis; Mark R Gilbert; Monika E Hegi; Craig Horbinski; Raymond Y Huang; Andrew B Lassman; Emilie Le Rhun; Michael Lim; Minesh P Mehta; Ingo K Mellinghoff; Giuseppe Minniti; David Nathanson; Michael Platten; Matthias Preusser; Patrick Roth; Marc Sanson; David Schiff; Susan C Short; Martin J B Taphoorn; Joerg-Christian Tonn; Jonathan Tsang; Roel G W Verhaak; Andreas von Deimling; Wolfgang Wick; Gelareh Zadeh; David A Reardon; Kenneth D Aldape; Martin J van den Bent
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 3.  Reevaluating stereotactic radiosurgery for glioblastoma: new potential for targeted dose-escalation.

Authors:  Ted K Yanagihara; Heva J Saadatmand; Tony J C Wang
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 4.  New Hypofractionation Radiation Strategies for Glioblastoma.

Authors:  Melissa Azoulay; Jennifer Shah; Erqi Pollom; Scott G Soltys
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 5.075

5.  [Radiotherapy for glioblastoma : ASCO endorses the ASTRO guideline].

Authors:  Clemens Seidel; Rolf-Dieter Kortmann
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 6.  The role of radiation in treating glioblastoma: here to stay.

Authors:  Christopher D Corso; Ranjit S Bindra; Minesh P Mehta
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 7.  Management of GBM: a problem of local recurrence.

Authors:  John P Kirkpatrick; Nadia N Laack; Helen A Shih; Vinai Gondi
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.130

8.  Treatment and outcomes for glioblastoma in elderly compared with non-elderly patients: a population-based study.

Authors:  E R Morgan; A Norman; K Laing; M D Seal
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 9.  Treatment-related changes in glioblastoma: a review on the controversies in response assessment criteria and the concepts of true progression, pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse and radionecrosis.

Authors:  P D Delgado-López; E Riñones-Mena; E M Corrales-García
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.405

10.  Recurrent glioblastomas in the elderly after maximal first-line treatment: does preserved overall condition warrant a maximal second-line treatment?

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.