4.5 Article

Glioblastoma management in the temozolomide era: have we improved outcome?

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 115, 期 2, 页码 303-310

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-013-1230-3

关键词

Glioblastoma; Population based study; Outcomes

资金

  1. Princess Margaret Hospital Research fundings
  2. Gerry and Nancy Pencer Brain Tumor Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Temozolomide (TMZ) during and after radiotherapy (RT) is recommended for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). We analyzed the adoption of this new standard of care for GBM in an academic cancer centre in Canada and assessed its impact on survival. GBM patients registered with Cancer Care Ontario between 2004 and 2008 were identified. Those a parts per thousand yen16 years age, newly diagnosed, treated at our institution, had confirmed pathology and complete records were included. Demographics, treatments, toxicity and outcome were captured. For survival analysis patients were stratified by age, ECOG, and treatment modalities including total cycles of TMZ. Descriptive statistics were used for early progressors and long term survivors. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival analyses. At a median follow-up of 28 months, we compared our outcome to updated EORTC-NCIC CE 3 results. Of 517 patients 433 were included for analysis. Majority were male (63 %), ECOG 0-1 (66 %), and a parts per thousand currency sign65 years (55 %). 44 % received CRT followed by TMZ, 13 % had CRT only, 30 % had RT only and 13 % had best supportive care. 10 % were early progressors and 9 % survived beyond 2 years. Comparison of our results to NCIC CTG CE.3 study data showed median survival was 15.8 versus 14.6 months, 2 year survival rate for CRT plus TMZ was 35 versus 26 %, and for RT alone 0 versus 10 %, respectively. < 50 % of GBM patients complete CRT with TMZ in the real-world setting. Prognosis for most patients with GBM remains dismal particularly if they are not suitable for RT and CRT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据