4.6 Article

Clinical and prognostic features of adult patients with gangliogliomas

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 409-413

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/not169

关键词

adults; ganglioglioma; malignant transformation; progression; treatment

资金

  1. Sanofi-Aventis
  2. AstraZeneca
  3. EMD-Serono

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Gangliogliomas (GGs) represent <1% of primary brain tumors in adults. Little is known regarding prognostic features, clinical characteristics, or the impact of treatment on patient outcomes. Methods. Our neuro-oncology longitudinal database was screened for patients with GG from 1992 to 2012. Sixty-seven patients (age > 18 y) were identified. Results. Sixty-two patients presented with low-grade GG and 5 with anaplastic GG. The median age at diagnosis was 29 years. With a median follow-up of 4.7 years after the initial diagnosis, 23 patients had progressive disease. Range of time to progression was 0.2-20 years. Nine patients with low-grade GG progressed to a malignant tumor. The median overall survival (OS) for all patients was not reached. The 2-, 5-, and 10-year OS for patients with low-grade GG were 100%, 88% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73%, 95%), and 84% (95% CI: 67%, 93%), respectively. Factors identified by univariate analysis that were significantly associated with OS were age, KPS, extent of resection (EOR), and grade. Factors on univariate analysis that were significantly associated with progression-free survival were grade and EOR. On multicovariate Cox regression, lower tumor grade and younger age were significant factors for longer OS. EOR is a significant factor for progression-free survival. Conclusions. While GG has excellent prognosis, malignant histologic grade, older age, and diagnosis with biopsy could indicate worse prognosis. The late nature and high rate of progression emphasize the importance of long-term follow-up. The role of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for incompletely resected low-grade GG remains unclear.

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

4.6
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