Literature DB >> 26608521

Pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients: the impact of extent of resection.

Hun Ho Park1,2, Tae Hoon Roh1,2, Seok Gu Kang1,2,3, Eui Hyun Kim1,2,3, Chang-Ki Hong1, Se Hoon Kim4,2,3, Sung Soo Ahn5,2, Seung Koo Lee5,2, Hye Jin Choi6,2, Jaeho Cho7,2, Sun Ho Kim1,2,3, Kyu-Sung Lee1,2,3, Chang-Ok Suh8,9,10, Jong Hee Chang11,12,13,14.   

Abstract

Pseudoprogression (psPD) is a radiation-induced toxicity that has substantial neurological consequence in glioblastoma (GBM) patients. MGMT promoter methylation has been shown to be an important prognostic factor of psPD, but the significance of extent of resection (EOR) remains unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis on newly diagnosed GBM patients with assessable MGMT promoter status who underwent the Stupp protocol. EOR was grouped into gross total resection (GTR), subtotal resection (STR), partial resection (PR) and stereotactic biopsy. Contrast enhancing lesion enlargement was classified as psPD or non-psPD. Among a total of 101 patients, GTR, STR, PR and stereotactic biopsy was performed in 57 (56.4%), 34 (33.7%), 9 (8.9%) and 1 patient (1%), respectively. Follow-up imaging at the end of Stupp protocol classified 45 patients (44.6%) as psPD and 56 (55.4%) as non-psPD. psPD was observed in 24 (61.5%) of 39 patients with methylated MGMT promoter and 21 (33.9%) of 62 patients with unmethylated MGMT promoter (p < 0.01). psPD was documented in 17 (29.8%), 19 (55.9%), 8 (88.9%) and 1 (100%) patient with GTR, STR, PR and stereotactic biopsy (p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariate analysis MGMT promoter status (OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.36-8.34) and EOR (OR 4.12, 95% CI 1.71-9.91) were independent predictors of psPD. A Cox proportional hazards model showed that MGMT status (HR 2.51, p < 0.01) and EOR (HR 2.99, p < 0.01) significantly influenced survival. MGMT status and EOR have a significant impact on psPD. GTR can reduce the side effects of psPD and prolong survival.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Extent of resection; Glioblastoma; MGMT promoter status; Pseudoprogression

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26608521     DOI: 10.1007/s11060-015-2001-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurooncol        ISSN: 0167-594X            Impact factor:   4.130


  28 in total

1.  Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group.

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

2.  Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma.

Authors:  Marc C Chamberlain; Michael J Glantz; Lisa Chalmers; Alixis Van Horn; Andrew E Sloan
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2006-08-31       Impact factor: 4.130

3.  Apoptosis induced by DNA damage O6-methylguanine is Bcl-2 and caspase-9/3 regulated and Fas/caspase-8 independent.

Authors:  K Ochs; B Kaina
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 12.701

4.  Inactivation of the DNA-repair gene MGMT and the clinical response of gliomas to alkylating agents.

Authors:  M Esteller; J Garcia-Foncillas; E Andion; S N Goodman; O F Hidalgo; V Vanaclocha; S B Baylin; J G Herman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-11-09       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Prognostic and predictive value of epigenetic silencing of MGMT in patients with high grade gliomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Robert A Olson; Priscilla K Brastianos; David A Palma
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2011-04-27       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 6.  Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse in the treatment of gliomas.

Authors:  Dieta Brandsma; Martin J van den Bent
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.710

Review 7.  Radiotherapy for high-grade gliomas. Does altered fractionation improve the outcome?

Authors:  Carsten Nieder; Nicolaus Andratschke; Nicole Wiedenmann; Raymonde Busch; Anca L Grosu; Michael Molls
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.621

8.  Cerebral radiation necrosis: incidence, outcomes, and risk factors with emphasis on radiation parameters and chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jeremy D Ruben; Michael Dally; Michael Bailey; Robin Smith; Catriona A McLean; Pasqual Fedele
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2006-03-06       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for primary glioblastoma multiforme.

Authors:  Nathan S Floyd; Shiao Y Woo; Bin S Teh; Charlotte Prado; Wei-Yuan Mai; Todd Trask; Philip L Gildenberg; Paul Holoye; Mark E Augspurger; L Steven Carpenter; Hsin H Lu; J Kam Chiu; Walter H Grant; E Brian Butler
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-03-01       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Cyberknife for brain metastases of malignant melanoma and renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Wendy Hara; Phuoc Tran; Gordon Li; Zheng Su; Putipun Puataweepong; John R Adler; Scott G Soltys; Steven D Chang; Iris C Gibbs
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  6 in total

1.  Results of a multicenter survey showing interindividual variability among neurosurgeons when deciding on the radicality of surgical resection in glioblastoma highlight the need for more objective guidelines.

Authors:  J Capellades; P Teixidor; G Villalba; C Hostalot; G Plans; R Armengol; S Medrano; A Estival; R Luque; S Gonzalez; M Gil-Gil; S Villa; J Sepulveda; J J García-Mosquera; C Balana
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 2.  Standard clinical approaches and emerging modalities for glioblastoma imaging.

Authors:  Joshua D Bernstock; Sam E Gary; Neil Klinger; Pablo A Valdes; Walid Ibn Essayed; Hannah E Olsen; Gustavo Chagoya; Galal Elsayed; Daisuke Yamashita; Patrick Schuss; Florian A Gessler; Pier Paolo Peruzzi; Asim K Bag; Gregory K Friedman
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2022-05-26

3.  Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 mutant glioblastomas demonstrate a decreased rate of pseudoprogression: a multi-institutional experience.

Authors:  Homan Mohammadi; Kevin Shiue; G Daniel Grass; Vivek Verma; Kay Engellandt; Dirk Daubner; Gabriele Schackert; Mercia J Gondim; Dibson Gondim; Alexander O Vortmeyer; Aaron P Kamer; William Jin; Timothy J Robinson; Gordon Watson; Hsiang-Hsuan M Yu; Tim Lautenschlaeger
Journal:  Neurooncol Pract       Date:  2019-10-10

4.  Pseudoprogression as an adverse event of glioblastoma therapy.

Authors:  Carmen Balaña; Jaume Capellades; Estela Pineda; Anna Estival; Josep Puig; Sira Domenech; Eugenia Verger; Teresa Pujol; Maria Martinez-García; Laura Oleaga; JoseMaria Velarde; Carlos Mesia; Rafael Fuentes; Jordi Marruecos; Sonia Del Barco; Salvador Villà; Cristina Carrato; Oscar Gallego; Miguel Gil-Gil; Jordi Craven-Bartle; Francesc Alameda
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 5.  The value of MGMT promote methylation and IDH-1 mutation on diagnosis of pseudoprogression in patients with high-grade glioma: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Min Zhou; Chaoshi Niu; Li Jia; Hu He
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Comorbid Medical Conditions as Predictors of Overall Survival in Glioblastoma Patients.

Authors:  Matthew T Carr; Camille J Hochheimer; Andrew K Rock; Alper Dincer; Lakshmi Ravindra; Fan Lily Zhang; Charles F Opalak; Nora Poulos; Adam P Sima; William C Broaddus
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.