4.5 Article

Proposal of a scoring scale as a survival predictor in intracranial oligodendrogliomas

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 79, 期 2, 页码 159-168

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-005-9026-8

关键词

grading; intracranial tumor; oligodendroglioma; prognosis; scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Histological, clinical and radiological features, and molecular genetic analysis are among the factors that have been considered in de. ning the prognosis of oligodendrogliomas ( OD), but they have yielded conflicting results. The purpose of this study was to test out a scoring scale based on clinical, radiological, pathological and molecular features. Material and method: To identify factors with prognostic significance, we analyzed 87 treated patients with a histological diagnosis of OD. Of the parameters analyzed, age, onset, clinical status, radiological enhancement, histological necrosis, mitosis and chromosomal anomalies emerged as significant prognosis factors using univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed age and chromosomal anomalies as independent factors of survival. Results: The factors with a significant prognostic value were combined to determine which grouping factors best predict outcome. The proposed score is a pure number resulting from a combination of: 2 major factors: age and chromosomal anomalies ( scored 3 - 0); 5 minor factors: onset, clinical examination, necrosis, mitoses ( scored 1 - 0), and radiological enhancement ( scored 2 - 0). According to our scale, 10 survival curves were produced for overall survival. Recursive partitioning of patients with the nearest score and outcome produced four groups with a significant difference in survival (p= 10(-5)). The power of both the scale and the partitioned groups for predicting outcome was more accurate than the WHO and St Anne grading systems, and the molecular subclassification. Conclusions: Our scale is a plausible way of classifying patients harboring intracranial OD according to expected survival.

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