Florian Putz1, Tobias Putz2, Nicole Goerig3, Stefan Knippen3, Thomas Gryc3, Ilker Eyüpoglu4, Karl Rössler4, Sabine Semrau3, Sebastian Lettmaier3, Rainer Fietkau3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. florian.putz@uk-erlangen.de. 2. Professorship of Demography, University of Bamberg, Feldkirchenstraße 21, 96052, Bamberg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Universitätsstraße 27, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Marital status is a well-described prognostic factor in patients with gliomas but the observed survival difference is unexplained in the available population-based studies. METHODS: A series of 57 elderly glioblastoma patients (≥70 years) were analyzed retrospectively. Patients received radiotherapy or chemoradiation with temozolomide. The prognostic significance of marital status was assessed. Disease complications, toxicity, and treatment delivery were evaluated in detail. RESULTS: Overall survival was significantly higher in married than in unmarried patients (median, 7.9 vs. 4.0 months; p = 0.006). The prognostic significance of marital status was preserved in the multivariate analysis (HR, 0.41; p = 0.011). Married patients could receive significantly higher daily temozolomide doses (mean, 53.7 mg/m² vs. 33.1 mg/m²; p = 0.020), were more likely to receive maintenance temozolomide (45.7 % vs. 11.8 %; p = 0.016), and had to be hospitalized less frequently during radiotherapy (55.0 % vs. 88.2 %; p = 0.016). Of the patients receiving temozolomide, married patients showed significantly lower rates of hematologic and liver toxicity. Most complications were infectious or neurologic in nature. Complications of any grade were more frequent in unmarried patients (58.8 % vs. 30.0 %; p = 0.041) with the incidence of grade 3-5 complications being particularly elevated (47.1 % vs. 15.0 %; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: We found poorer treatment delivery as well as an unexpected severe increase in toxicity and disease complications in elderly unmarried glioblastoma patients. Marital status may be an important predictive factor for clinical decision-making and should be addressed in further studies.
OBJECTIVES: Marital status is a well-described prognostic factor in patients with gliomas but the observed survival difference is unexplained in the available population-based studies. METHODS: A series of 57 elderly glioblastomapatients (≥70 years) were analyzed retrospectively. Patients received radiotherapy or chemoradiation with temozolomide. The prognostic significance of marital status was assessed. Disease complications, toxicity, and treatment delivery were evaluated in detail. RESULTS: Overall survival was significantly higher in married than in unmarried patients (median, 7.9 vs. 4.0 months; p = 0.006). The prognostic significance of marital status was preserved in the multivariate analysis (HR, 0.41; p = 0.011). Married patients could receive significantly higher daily temozolomide doses (mean, 53.7 mg/m² vs. 33.1 mg/m²; p = 0.020), were more likely to receive maintenance temozolomide (45.7 % vs. 11.8 %; p = 0.016), and had to be hospitalized less frequently during radiotherapy (55.0 % vs. 88.2 %; p = 0.016). Of the patients receiving temozolomide, married patients showed significantly lower rates of hematologic and liver toxicity. Most complications were infectious or neurologic in nature. Complications of any grade were more frequent in unmarried patients (58.8 % vs. 30.0 %; p = 0.041) with the incidence of grade 3-5 complications being particularly elevated (47.1 % vs. 15.0 %; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: We found poorer treatment delivery as well as an unexpected severe increase in toxicity and disease complications in elderly unmarried glioblastomapatients. Marital status may be an important predictive factor for clinical decision-making and should be addressed in further studies.
Authors: Normand Laperriere; Michael Weller; Roger Stupp; James R Perry; Alba A Brandes; Wolfgang Wick; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Margaret Wrensch; Terri Rice; Rei Miike; Alex McMillan; Kathleen R Lamborn; Kenneth Aldape; Michael D Prados Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: W J Curran; C B Scott; J Horton; J S Nelson; A S Weinstein; A J Fischbach; C H Chang; M Rotman; S O Asbell; R E Krisch Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-05-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rachel L Derr; Xiaobu Ye; Melissa U Islas; Serena Desideri; Christopher D Saudek; Stuart A Grossman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Chai Hong Rim; Won Sup Yoon; Jung Ae Lee; Dae Sik Yang; Nam Kwon Lee; Young Je Park; Chul Yong Kim Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jan C Peeken; Josefine Hesse; Bernhard Haller; Kerstin A Kessel; Fridtjof Nüsslin; Stephanie E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 3.621