4.5 Article

Treatment outcome of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: a retrospective multicenter analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 135, Issue 1, Pages 183-192

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-017-2564-z

Keywords

Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme; Treatment strategies; Treatment effectiveness; Survival outcome

Funding

  1. Dutch Cancer Society [RUG 2011-5265]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) universally recurs with dismal prognosis. We evaluated the efficacy of standard treatment strategies for patients with recurrent GBM (rGBM). From two centers in the Netherlands, 299 patients with rGBM after first-line treatment, diagnosed between 2005 and 2014, were retrospectively evaluated. Four different treatment strategies were defined: systemic treatment (SYST), re-irradiation (RT), re-resection followed by adjuvant treatment (SURG) and best supportive care (BSC). Median OS for all patients was 6.5 months, and median PFS (excluding patients receiving BSC) was 5.5 months. Older age, multifocal lesions and steroid use were significantly associated with a shorter survival. After correction for confounders, patients receiving SYST (34.8%) and SURG (18.7%) had a significantly longer survival than patients receiving BSC (39.5%), 7.3 and 11.0 versus 3.1 months, respectively [HR 0.46 (p < 0.001) and 0.36 (p < 0.001)]. Median survival for patients receiving RT (7.0%) was 9.2 months, but this was not significantly different from patients receiving BSC (p = 0.068). Patients receiving SURG compared to SYST had a longer PFS (9.0 vs. 4.3 months, respectively; p < 0.001), but no difference in OS was observed. After adjustments for confounders, patients with rGBM selected for treatment with SURG or SYST do survive significantly longer than patients who are selected for BSC based on clinical parameters. The value of reoperation versus systemic treatment strategies needs further investigation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available