4.5 Article

Prognostication of Survival Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed with Glioblastoma

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 109, Issue -, Pages E67-E74

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.104

Keywords

Epidemiology; Glioblastoma; Prognostic factors; Survival

Funding

  1. Baylor Scott and White Healthcare Plummer Chair's Fund
  2. [NIH-R01-NS-067435]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is an aggressive primary brain tumor with dismal survival. This study aims to examine the prognostic value of primary tumor sites and race on survival outcomes. METHODS: Patient data obtained from the Scott and White Hospital Brain Tumor Registry (1976-2013) were stratified according to sex, age, race, primary tumor site, vital status, and survival. RESULTS: Of the 645 patients, 580 (89.9%) were diagnosed with GBM not otherwise specified (GBM NOS), 57 (8.8%) with GBM, and 8 (1.2%) with giant-cell GBM. Most were male (53.5%), aged 50 years or older (78.7%). The white population had the highest GBM prevalence (87.1%) and the lowest overall survival versus all other race groups (6.6% vs. 30.1%; P < 0.01). The black population had a relatively low prevalence of GBM (5.9%) and the greatest overall survival versus all others (47.4% vs. 7.3%; P < 0.01). Primary tumor sites located in the temporal (25.8% vs. 20.2%; P=0.03), occipital (8.1% vs. 2.9%; P=0.05), and parietal lobes (24.2% vs. 20.8%; P=0.05) had a greater occurrence in surviving individuals. The overall survival for men versus women was (62.9% vs. 37.1%; P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Black racial background and temporal, occipital, or parietal primary tumor sites are suggestive of positive survival outcomes. Conversely, white racial background with primary tumor sites in the brain overlapping and NOS areas seem to be associated with negative outcomes and decreased survival. Thus, racial background and primary tumor site may be useful prognostic factors in patients with GBM.

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