Search

Objective: The role of resection in progressive glioblastoma (GBM) to prolong survival is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine 1) the predictors of post-progression survival (PPS) in progressive GBM and 2) which subgroups of patients would benefit from recurrent resection., Methods: We have conducted a retrospective bicentric cohort study on isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH ) wild-type GBM treated in our hospitals between 2006 and 2015. Kaplan-Maier analyses and univariable and multivariable Cox regressions were performed to identify predictors and their influence on PPS., Results: Of 589 patients with progressive IDH wild-type GBM, 355 patients were included in analyses. Median PPS of all patients was 9 months (95% CI 8.0-10.0), with complete resection 12 months (95% CI 9.7-14.3, n=81), incomplete resection 11 months (95% CI 8.9-13.1, n=70) and without resection 7 months (95% CI 06-08, n=204). Multivariable Cox regression demonstrated a benefit for PPS with complete (HR 0.67, CI 0.49-0.90) and incomplete resection (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.51-1.04) and confirmed methylation of the O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter, lower age at diagnosis, absence of deep brain and multilocular localization, higher Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and recurrent therapies to be associated with longer PPS. In contrast, traditional eloquence and duration of progression-free survival had no effect on PPS. Subgroup analyses showed that all subgroups of confirmed predictors benefited from resection, except for patients in poor condition with a KPS <70., Conclusions: Out data suggest a role for complete and incomplete recurrent resection in progressive GBM patients regardless of methylation of MGMT , age, or adjuvant therapy but not in patients with a poor clinical condition with a KPS <70., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Behling, Rang, Dangel, Noell, Renovanz, Mäurer, Schittenhelm, Bender, Paulsen, Brendel, Martus, Gempt, Barz, Meyer, Tatagiba and Skardelly.)

Objective: The exact role of the extent of resection or residual tumor volume on overall survival in glioblastoma patients is still controversial. Our aim was to create a statistical model showing the association between resection extent/residual tumor volume and overall survival and to provide a nomogram that can assess the survival benefit of individual patients and serve as a reference for non-randomized studies., Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, we used the non-parametric Cox regression and the parametric log-logistic accelerated failure time model in patients with glioblastoma. On 303 patients (training set), we developed a model to evaluate the effect of the extent of resection/residual tumor volume on overall survival and created a score to estimate individual overall survival. The stability of the model was validated by 20-fold cross-validation and predictive accuracy by an external cohort of 253 patients (validation set)., Results: We found a continuous relationship between extent of resection or residual tumor volume and overall survival. Our final accelerated failure time model (pseudo R 2 = 0.423; C-index = 0.749) included residual tumor volume, age, O 6 -methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase methylation, therapy modality, resectability, and ventricular wall infiltration as independent predictors of overall survival. Based on these factors, we developed a nomogram for assessing the survival of individual patients that showed a median absolute predictive error of 2.78 (mean: 1.83) months, an improvement of about 40% compared with the most promising established models., Conclusions: A continuous relationship between residual tumor volume and overall survival supports the concept of maximum safe resection. Due to the low absolute predictive error and the consideration of uneven distributions of covariates, this model is suitable for clinical decision making and helps to evaluate the results of non-randomized studies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Skardelly, Kaltenstadler, Behling, Mäurer, Schittenhelm, Bender, Paulsen, Hedderich, Renovanz, Gempt, Barz, Meyer, Tabatabai and Tatagiba.)

The psycho-oncological burden related to the diagnosis of an intracranial tumor is often accompanied by neurocognitive deficits and changes in character, overall affecting health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and activities of daily living. Regular administration of adequate screening tools is crucial to ensure a timely detection of needs for support and/or specific interventions. Although efforts have been made to assure the quality of neuro-oncological care, clinical assessment practice of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains overall heterogeneous, calling for a concise recommendation tailored to neuro-oncological patients. Therefore, this survey, promoted by the German Society of Neurosurgery, was conducted to evaluate the status quo of health care resources and PRO/neurocognition assessment practices throughout departments of surgical neuro-oncology in Germany. 72/127 (57%) of registered departments participated in the study, including 83% of all university hospital units. A second aim was to shed light on the impact of quality assurance strategies (i.e., department certification as part of an integrative neuro-oncology cancer center; CNOC) on the assessment practice, controlled for interacting structural factors, i.e., university hospital status (UH) and caseload. Despite an overall good to excellent availability of relevant health care structures (psycho-oncologist: 90%, palliative care unit: 97%, neuropsychology: 75%), a small majority of departments practice patient-centered screenings (psycho-oncological burden: 64%, HRQoL: 76%, neurocognition: 58%), however, much less frequently outside the framework of clinical trials. In this context, CNOC affiliation, representing a specific health care quality assurance process, was associated with significantly stronger PRO assessment practices regarding psycho-oncological burden, independent of UH status (common odds ratio=5.0, p=0.03). Nevertheless, PRO/neurocognitive assessment practice was not consistent even across CNOC. The overall most commonly used PRO/neurocognitive assessment tools were the Distress Thermometer (for psycho-oncological burden; 64%), the EORTC QLQ-C30 combined with the EORTC QLQ-BN20 (for HRQoL; 52%) and the Mini-Mental Status Test (for neurocognition; 67%), followed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; 33%). Accordingly, for routine clinical screening, the authors recommend the Distress Thermometer and the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20, complemented by the MoCA as a comparatively sensitive yet basic neurocognitive test. This recommendation is intended to encourage more regular, adequate, and standardized routine assessments in neuro-oncological practice., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Weiss Lucas, Renovanz, Jost, Sabel, Wiewrodt and Rapp.)