4.3 Article

Prognostic factors for glioblastoma patients - a clinical population-based study

Journal

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 133, Issue 6, Pages 434-441

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ane.12481

Keywords

glioblastoma; population-based study; prognostic factors; survival

Funding

  1. AFA Research Foundation, Health Medical Care Committee at Vastra Gotaland (Regional FoU)
  2. Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University through the LUA/ALF
  3. Margaretahemmet Foundation
  4. Gothenburg Foundation for Neurological Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesTo address in a retrospective and population-based study prognostic factors for survival time after diagnosis and surgery for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). Material and methodsDuring the study period, 430 patients were identified at the multidisciplinary team conferences as newly diagnosed GBM, 201 of these were considered not to benefit from surgery, and thus, a total of 229 consecutive adult patients with GBM were operated between January 2004 and December 2008 at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and were retrospectively analyzed. Potential predictors of survival were statistically analyzed using Poisson regression models. ResultsMedian survival was 0.73years. Multivariable analysis showed the following factors to positively influence survival: younger age at surgery, secondary tumor genesis, unifocal tumor location (vs multifocal), resection (vs biopsy only), radiotherapy, and combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. ConclusionThis population-based study supports the importance of surgery instead of biopsy only, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy, a finding which has also been stated in earlier non-population-based reports. However, it is obvious that the solution is not just surgical radicality followed by optimal oncological treatment. It is of great importance to seek further subclassifications, biomarkers, and new treatment modalities to make a significant change in survival for individuals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available