Cargando…

Evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: A single institution experience

AIMS: We present retrospective analysis of patients of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and discuss clinical characteristics, various treatment protocols, survival outcomes, and prognostic factors influencing survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2002 to June 2009, 439 patients of GBM were regi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, Narendra, Kumar, Pankaj, Angurana, Shabab Lalit, Khosla, Divya, Mukherjee, Kanchan Kumar, Aggarwal, Rupali, Kumar, Ritesh, Bera, Anjan, Sharma, Suresh Chander
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3808062/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24174800
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.116455
_version_ 1782288545324466176
author Kumar, Narendra
Kumar, Pankaj
Angurana, Shabab Lalit
Khosla, Divya
Mukherjee, Kanchan Kumar
Aggarwal, Rupali
Kumar, Ritesh
Bera, Anjan
Sharma, Suresh Chander
author_facet Kumar, Narendra
Kumar, Pankaj
Angurana, Shabab Lalit
Khosla, Divya
Mukherjee, Kanchan Kumar
Aggarwal, Rupali
Kumar, Ritesh
Bera, Anjan
Sharma, Suresh Chander
author_sort Kumar, Narendra
collection PubMed
description AIMS: We present retrospective analysis of patients of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and discuss clinical characteristics, various treatment protocols, survival outcomes, and prognostic factors influencing survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2002 to June 2009, 439 patients of GBM were registered in our department. The median age of patients was 50 years, 66.1% were males, and 75% underwent complete or near-total excision. We evaluated those 360 patients who received radiotherapy (RT). Radiotherapy schedule was selected depending upon pre-RT Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS). Patients with KPS < 70 (Group I, n = 48) were planned for RT dose of 30-35 Gy in 10-15 fractions, and patients with KPS ≥ 70 (Group II, n = 312) were planned for 60 Gy in 30 fractions. In group I, six patients and in group II, 89 patients received some form of chemotherapy (lomustine or temozolomide). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 12.0. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier method, and prognostic factors were determined by log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 7.53 months. The median and 2-year survival rates were 6.33 months and 2.24% for group I and 7.97 months and 8.21% for group II patients, respectively (P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, site of tumor (central vs. others; P = 0.006), location of tumor (parietal lobe vs. others; P = 0.003), RT dose (<60 Gy vs. 60 Gy; P = 0.0001), and use of some form of chemotherapy (P = 0.0001) were independent prognostic factors for survival. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GBM, OS and prognosis remains dismal. Whenever possible, we should use concurrent and/or adjuvant chemotherapy to maximize the benefits of post-operative radiotherapy. Patients with poor performance status may be considered for hypofractionated RT schedules, which have similar median survival rates as conventional RT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3808062
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38080622013-10-30 Evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: A single institution experience Kumar, Narendra Kumar, Pankaj Angurana, Shabab Lalit Khosla, Divya Mukherjee, Kanchan Kumar Aggarwal, Rupali Kumar, Ritesh Bera, Anjan Sharma, Suresh Chander J Neurosci Rural Pract Original Article AIMS: We present retrospective analysis of patients of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and discuss clinical characteristics, various treatment protocols, survival outcomes, and prognostic factors influencing survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2002 to June 2009, 439 patients of GBM were registered in our department. The median age of patients was 50 years, 66.1% were males, and 75% underwent complete or near-total excision. We evaluated those 360 patients who received radiotherapy (RT). Radiotherapy schedule was selected depending upon pre-RT Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS). Patients with KPS < 70 (Group I, n = 48) were planned for RT dose of 30-35 Gy in 10-15 fractions, and patients with KPS ≥ 70 (Group II, n = 312) were planned for 60 Gy in 30 fractions. In group I, six patients and in group II, 89 patients received some form of chemotherapy (lomustine or temozolomide). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 12.0. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier method, and prognostic factors were determined by log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 7.53 months. The median and 2-year survival rates were 6.33 months and 2.24% for group I and 7.97 months and 8.21% for group II patients, respectively (P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, site of tumor (central vs. others; P = 0.006), location of tumor (parietal lobe vs. others; P = 0.003), RT dose (<60 Gy vs. 60 Gy; P = 0.0001), and use of some form of chemotherapy (P = 0.0001) were independent prognostic factors for survival. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GBM, OS and prognosis remains dismal. Whenever possible, we should use concurrent and/or adjuvant chemotherapy to maximize the benefits of post-operative radiotherapy. Patients with poor performance status may be considered for hypofractionated RT schedules, which have similar median survival rates as conventional RT. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3808062/ /pubmed/24174800 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.116455 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kumar, Narendra
Kumar, Pankaj
Angurana, Shabab Lalit
Khosla, Divya
Mukherjee, Kanchan Kumar
Aggarwal, Rupali
Kumar, Ritesh
Bera, Anjan
Sharma, Suresh Chander
Evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: A single institution experience
title Evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: A single institution experience
title_full Evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: A single institution experience
title_fullStr Evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: A single institution experience
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: A single institution experience
title_short Evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: A single institution experience
title_sort evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: a single institution experience
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3808062/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24174800
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-3147.116455
work_keys_str_mv AT kumarnarendra evaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinpatientsofglioblastomamultiformeasingleinstitutionexperience
AT kumarpankaj evaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinpatientsofglioblastomamultiformeasingleinstitutionexperience
AT anguranashabablalit evaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinpatientsofglioblastomamultiformeasingleinstitutionexperience
AT khosladivya evaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinpatientsofglioblastomamultiformeasingleinstitutionexperience
AT mukherjeekanchankumar evaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinpatientsofglioblastomamultiformeasingleinstitutionexperience
AT aggarwalrupali evaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinpatientsofglioblastomamultiformeasingleinstitutionexperience
AT kumarritesh evaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinpatientsofglioblastomamultiformeasingleinstitutionexperience
AT beraanjan evaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinpatientsofglioblastomamultiformeasingleinstitutionexperience
AT sharmasureshchander evaluationofoutcomeandprognosticfactorsinpatientsofglioblastomamultiformeasingleinstitutionexperience