4.0 Article

Phase II study of hypofractionated radiation therapy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with poor prognosis

Journal

TUMORI JOURNAL
Volume 105, Issue 1, Pages 47-54

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0300891618792483

Keywords

Elderly; glioblastoma; hypofractionated radiotherapy; adjuvant chemotherapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) given at therapeutic effective doses in a phase II study. Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) rate, overall survival (OS), and incidence of toxicity. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, age > 70 years, Karnofsky performance scale (KPS) score <= 60, were enrolled. The total dose of HFRT was 52.5 Gy/15 fractions, corresponded to a biological effective dose to the tumor of 70.88 Gy. Results: Thirty patients were treated, with a median age of 75 years. Concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy (TMZ-CHT) was administered in 7 (23.3%) and 11 (40.7%) patients received only adjuvant TMZ-CHT. The median, 6-month PFS, and 12-month PFS were 5.0 months, 43.3%, and 20%, respectively. The median, 6-month OS, and 12-month OS were 8 months, 90%, and 30%, respectively. At the last observation time, 26 patients (86.7%) were dead and 4 (13.3%) were alive. No increase in steroid drugs was required during radiotherapy treatment and a reduction was possible in 12 (40%). Patients with KPS=60, RPA V, MGMT methylated status, neurological status stable or improved after surgery and who underwent HFRT with concurrent and adjuvant CHT, had the better outcome. Conclusion: HFRT has proven to be feasible and effective, with limited morbidity, for selected elderly and frail patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. The primary objective of this study was not reached in the whole cohort but only in selected patients, who need more aggressive treatment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available