4.4 Article

Age as a Predictive Factor in Glioblastomas: Population-Based Study

Journal

NEUROEPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 17-22

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000210017

Keywords

Glioblastoma; Population based study; Age; Radiotherapy; Survival

Funding

  1. Foundation for Promotion of Cancer Research, Japan
  2. Sumitomo Life Social Welfare Services Foundation
  3. Cell Science Research Foundation
  4. Hokkoku Cancer Foundation, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated 715 glioblastoma patients diagnosed during 1980-1994 in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland, to provide information on how patients were treated at the population level. Despite a general policy during the study period of treatment by surgical intervention aimed at maximum tumor removal followed by radiotherapy, there was a marked tendency toward limited treatment with advancing patient age. Of those younger than 65 years, 82% were treated either with surgery followed by radiotherapy, surgery alone or radiotherapy alone, versus 47% of patients 65 years or older. Only 25% of patients older than 75 years underwent surgery and/or radiotherapy, while the remaining patients were given best supportive care (BSC). The mean ages of patients were 54.5 years for those treated with surgery and radiotherapy, 58.3 years for surgery alone, 62.2 years for radiotherapy alone and 69.2 years for BSC. Among patients who were treated with surgery plus radiotherapy and those treated with radiotherapy alone, younger patients (< 60 years) had a significantly higher survival rate than older patients (>= 60 years). In contrast, no significant difference in survival was observed between younger and older patients treated with surgery alone or receiving BSC, suggesting that lower survival rates in elderly patients with glioblastoma may be at least in part due to a lesser response to radiotherapy. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available