4.6 Article

The Predictive but Not Prognostic Value of MGMT Promoter Methylation Status in Elderly Glioblastoma Patients: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085102

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81171087]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The clinical implication of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter status is ill-defined in elderly glioblastoma patients. Here we report a meta-analysis to seek valid evidence for its clinical relevance in this subpopulation. Methods: Literature were searched and reviewed in a systematic manner using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Studies investigating the association between MGMT promoter status and survival data of elderly patients (>= 65 years) were eligible for inclusion. Results: Totally 16 studies were identified, with 13 studies included in the final analyses. The aggregate proportion of MGMT promoter methylation in elderly patients was 47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 42-52%), which was similar to the value for younger patients. The analyses showed differential effects of MGMT status on overall survival (OS) of elderly patients according to assigned treatments: methylated vs. unmethylated: (1) temozolomide (TMZ)-containing therapies: hazard ratio [HR] 0.49, 95% CI 0.41-0.58; (2) TMZ-free therapies: HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77-1.21. More importantly, a useful predictive value was observed by an interaction analysis: TMZ-containing therapies vs. RT alone: (1) methylated tumors: HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.65; (2) unmethylated tumors: HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.90-1.44. Conclusion: The meta-analysis reports an age-independent presence of MGMT promoter methylation. More importantly, the study encouraged routine testing of MGMT promoter status especially in elderly glioblastoma patients by indicating a direct linkage between biomarker test and individual treatment decision. Future studies are needed to justify the mandatory testing in younger patients.

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