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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |