4.1 Article

Evaluating extent of resection in pediatric glioblastoma: a multiple propensity score-adjusted population-based analysis

期刊

CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 493-503

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00381-015-3006-x

关键词

Extent of resection; Surgery; Pediatric; Glioblastoma; GBM; Survival

资金

  1. Prins Bernhard Fonds
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The benefit of radical resections for glioblastoma patients remains a source of contention in the literature. Few studies have been conducted in pediatric patients, and it is becoming increasingly evident that data regarding adult glioblastoma (GB) patients cannot be generalized to pediatric patients affected by this neoplasm. A comparative effectiveness study is performed for different extent of resection (EOR) groups in the largest cohort of pediatric GB (pGB) patients. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry was used to identify pGB patients from 1988 through 2009. Multivariate- and multiple propensity score (mPS)-adjusted analyses were used to determine the effect of gross total resection (GTR), partial resection (PR), and biopsy (Bx) on overall survival. Survival prospects were summarized using direct adjusted survival curves. A total of 342 pGB patients were identified, and 35.4 % of patients received a GTR, 28.8 % PR, 17.3 % Bx, and 17.0 % did not undergo surgery. In our cohort, a median overall survival of 12 months was observed with 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates of 51.7, 28.3, and 15.7 %, respectively. EOR was a predictor of survival in both the multivariate- (P < 0.001) and mPS-adjusted model (P < 0.001). Compared to the GTR group, a higher mortality rate was observed in patients who underwent a PR (HR 1.50; 95 % CI, 1.02-2.21) or Bx (HR 1.87; 95 % CI, 1.18-2.98). There were no significant differences in (adjusted) mortality risk between the PR and Bx groups. Our study suggests that GTR is independently associated with improved survival for pediatric patients with glioblastoma.

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

4.1
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