4.7 Article

Supratentorial low-grade gliomas in older patients

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 73, 期 24, 页码 2093-2098

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181c6781e

关键词

-

资金

  1. Association pour la Recherche sur les Tumeurs Cerebrales (ARTC)
  2. French National Cancer Institute (INCa)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Low-grade gliomas (LGG) are thought to be very rare in elderly patients (> 60 years) and have not been thoroughly studied. Methods: A series of 62 elderly (>= 60 years of age) LGG patients were identified in a department database collecting information on pathologically identified adult supratentorial LGG. The clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and therapeutic data of these patients were analyzed and compared to those of 704 younger LGG patients (< 60 years). Results: Comparisons between older and younger groups showed that elderly patients more often presented with a clinical deficit (p < 0.0001), a lower Karnofsky performance status (p = 0.0002), a larger tumor on MRI (p = 0.03), and a lower rate of tumor resection (p < 0.0001). Chemotherapy was more often used as first line treatment (p = 0.001). Among the patients who died of progressive disease, 55% of the elderly patients had not received radiotherapy compared to 11% in the younger group (p < 0.0001). Survival was shorter in older patients (p < 0.0001), with a 5-year survival rate of 40%. An astrocytic phenotype (p = 0.0097), increasing age (p = 0.0049), and a tumor crossing the midline (p = 0.028) were negative prognostic factors in the older group. Conclusion: We found that 8% of low-grade gliomas (LGG) occur in older patients (>= 60 years of age). The clinical-radiologic picture of LGG in the elderly population differs from younger patients. Although long-term survival occurs, the course is generally more severe because elderly patients accumulate negative prognostic factors and because they are probably undertreated. Neurology (R) 2009; 73: 2093-2098

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

4.7
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