Cargando…
Prognostic impact of obesity in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of CeTeG/NOA-09 and GLARIUS
PURPOSE: The role of obesity in glioblastoma remains unclear, as previous analyses have reported contradicting results. Here, we evaluate the prognostic impact of obesity in two trial populations; CeTeG/NOA-09 (n = 129) for MGMT methylated glioblastoma patients comparing temozolomide (TMZ) to lomust...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9325931/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35704157 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-04046-z |
_version_ | 1784757164505563136 |
---|---|
author | Weller, Johannes Schäfer, Niklas Schaub, Christina Potthoff, Anna-Laura Steinbach, Joachim P. Schlegel, Uwe Sabel, Michael Hau, Peter Seidel, Clemens Krex, Dietmar Goldbrunner, Roland Pietsch, Torsten Tzaridis, Theophilos Zeyen, Thomas Borger, Valeri Güresir, Erdem Vatter, Hartmut Herrlinger, Ulrich Schneider, Matthias |
author_facet | Weller, Johannes Schäfer, Niklas Schaub, Christina Potthoff, Anna-Laura Steinbach, Joachim P. Schlegel, Uwe Sabel, Michael Hau, Peter Seidel, Clemens Krex, Dietmar Goldbrunner, Roland Pietsch, Torsten Tzaridis, Theophilos Zeyen, Thomas Borger, Valeri Güresir, Erdem Vatter, Hartmut Herrlinger, Ulrich Schneider, Matthias |
author_sort | Weller, Johannes |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The role of obesity in glioblastoma remains unclear, as previous analyses have reported contradicting results. Here, we evaluate the prognostic impact of obesity in two trial populations; CeTeG/NOA-09 (n = 129) for MGMT methylated glioblastoma patients comparing temozolomide (TMZ) to lomustine/TMZ, and GLARIUS (n = 170) for MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma patients comparing TMZ to bevacizumab/irinotecan, both in addition to surgery and radiotherapy. METHODS: The impact of obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was investigated with Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests. A multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed including known prognostic factors as covariables. RESULTS: Overall, 22.6% of patients (67 of 297) were obese. Obesity was associated with shorter survival in patients with MGMT methylated glioblastoma (median OS 22.9 (95% CI 17.7–30.8) vs. 43.2 (32.5–54.4) months for obese and non-obese patients respectively, p = 0.001), but not in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma (median OS 17.1 (15.8–18.9) vs 17.6 (14.7–20.8) months, p = 0.26). The prognostic impact of obesity in MGMT methylated glioblastoma was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression (adjusted odds ratio: 2.57 (95% CI 1.53–4.31), p < 0.001) adjusted for age, sex, extent of resection, baseline steroids, Karnofsky performance score, and treatment arm. CONCLUSION: Obesity was associated with shorter survival in MGMT methylated, but not in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9325931 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93259312022-07-28 Prognostic impact of obesity in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of CeTeG/NOA-09 and GLARIUS Weller, Johannes Schäfer, Niklas Schaub, Christina Potthoff, Anna-Laura Steinbach, Joachim P. Schlegel, Uwe Sabel, Michael Hau, Peter Seidel, Clemens Krex, Dietmar Goldbrunner, Roland Pietsch, Torsten Tzaridis, Theophilos Zeyen, Thomas Borger, Valeri Güresir, Erdem Vatter, Hartmut Herrlinger, Ulrich Schneider, Matthias J Neurooncol Clinical Study PURPOSE: The role of obesity in glioblastoma remains unclear, as previous analyses have reported contradicting results. Here, we evaluate the prognostic impact of obesity in two trial populations; CeTeG/NOA-09 (n = 129) for MGMT methylated glioblastoma patients comparing temozolomide (TMZ) to lomustine/TMZ, and GLARIUS (n = 170) for MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma patients comparing TMZ to bevacizumab/irinotecan, both in addition to surgery and radiotherapy. METHODS: The impact of obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was investigated with Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests. A multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed including known prognostic factors as covariables. RESULTS: Overall, 22.6% of patients (67 of 297) were obese. Obesity was associated with shorter survival in patients with MGMT methylated glioblastoma (median OS 22.9 (95% CI 17.7–30.8) vs. 43.2 (32.5–54.4) months for obese and non-obese patients respectively, p = 0.001), but not in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma (median OS 17.1 (15.8–18.9) vs 17.6 (14.7–20.8) months, p = 0.26). The prognostic impact of obesity in MGMT methylated glioblastoma was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression (adjusted odds ratio: 2.57 (95% CI 1.53–4.31), p < 0.001) adjusted for age, sex, extent of resection, baseline steroids, Karnofsky performance score, and treatment arm. CONCLUSION: Obesity was associated with shorter survival in MGMT methylated, but not in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma patients. Springer US 2022-06-15 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9325931/ /pubmed/35704157 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-04046-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Weller, Johannes Schäfer, Niklas Schaub, Christina Potthoff, Anna-Laura Steinbach, Joachim P. Schlegel, Uwe Sabel, Michael Hau, Peter Seidel, Clemens Krex, Dietmar Goldbrunner, Roland Pietsch, Torsten Tzaridis, Theophilos Zeyen, Thomas Borger, Valeri Güresir, Erdem Vatter, Hartmut Herrlinger, Ulrich Schneider, Matthias Prognostic impact of obesity in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of CeTeG/NOA-09 and GLARIUS |
title | Prognostic impact of obesity in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of CeTeG/NOA-09 and GLARIUS |
title_full | Prognostic impact of obesity in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of CeTeG/NOA-09 and GLARIUS |
title_fullStr | Prognostic impact of obesity in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of CeTeG/NOA-09 and GLARIUS |
title_full_unstemmed | Prognostic impact of obesity in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of CeTeG/NOA-09 and GLARIUS |
title_short | Prognostic impact of obesity in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of CeTeG/NOA-09 and GLARIUS |
title_sort | prognostic impact of obesity in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a secondary analysis of ceteg/noa-09 and glarius |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9325931/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35704157 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-04046-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wellerjohannes prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT schaferniklas prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT schaubchristina prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT potthoffannalaura prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT steinbachjoachimp prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT schlegeluwe prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT sabelmichael prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT haupeter prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT seidelclemens prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT krexdietmar prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT goldbrunnerroland prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT pietschtorsten prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT tzaridistheophilos prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT zeyenthomas prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT borgervaleri prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT guresirerdem prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT vatterhartmut prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT herrlingerulrich prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius AT schneidermatthias prognosticimpactofobesityinnewlydiagnosedglioblastomaasecondaryanalysisofcetegnoa09andglarius |