4.3 Article

Improved survival of Swedish glioblastoma patients treated according to Stupp

Journal

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 138, Issue 4, Pages 332-337

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ane.12966

Keywords

glioblastoma; mortality; radiotherapy; Stupp treatment; survival; temozolomide

Funding

  1. Gustav Lindholms Stiftelse for elakartade hjarntumorer
  2. Futurum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesThe median survival in glioblastoma (GBM) patients used to be less than 1year. Surgical removal of the tumor with subsequent concomitant radiation/temozolomide (the Stupp regimen) has been shown to prolong survival. The Stupp protocol was implemented in the county of Jonkoping in 2006. The purpose of this study was to examine if the Stupp treatment has prolonged overall survival, in an unselected patient cohort with histologically verified GBM. Material and MethodThis study includes all patients from the county of Jonkoping, with a diagnosis of GBM from January 2001 to December 2012. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts, 2001-2005 and 2006-2012, that is before and after implementation of the Stupp regimen. By reviewing the medical case notes, the dates of the histological diagnosis and of death were identified. The median and mean overall survival and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were calculated and compared between the 2 cohorts. ResultsThe mean survival was 110days longer in the cohort treated according to the Stupp regimen. Four patients in the 2006-2012 cohort and 1 patient in the 2001-2005 cohort are still alive. When comparing survival in patients with radical surgery vs biopsy, those that underwent radical surgery survived longer. The significance was slightly greater in the 2001-2005 cohort (mean 163 vs 344days, P<.001) than in the 2006-2012 cohort (mean 220 vs 397days, P=.02). ConclusionSurvival significantly improved after the implementation of the Stupp regimen in the study region of Sweden.

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