Search

Circulating biomarkers in blood may provide an interesting alternative to risky tissue biopsies in the diagnosis and follow-up of glioblastoma patients. We have assessed MGMT methylation status in blood and tissue samples from unresected glioblastoma patients who had been included in the randomized GENOM-009 trial. Paired blood and tissue samples were assessed by methylation-specific PCR (MSP) and pyrosequencing (PYR). After establishing the minimum PYR cut-off that could yield a significant difference in overall survival, we assessed the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) of the analyses. Methylation could be detected in cfDNA by both MSP and PYR but with low concordance with results in tissue. Sensitivity was low for both methods (31% and 38%, respectively), while specificity was higher for MSP in blood than for PYR in plasma (96% vs 76%) and NPV was similar (56 vs 57%). Concordance of results in tissue by MSP and PYR was 84.3% (P < 0.001) and correlated with outcome. We conclude that detection of cfDNA in the blood of glioblastoma patients can be an alternative when tumor tissue is not available but methods for the detection of cfDNA in blood must improve before it can replace analysis in tumor tissue.

Purpose: We retrospectively examined the potential effect on overall survival (OS) of delaying radiotherapy to administer neoadjuvant therapy in unresected glioblastoma patients., Patients and Methods: We compared OS in 119 patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by standard treatment (NA group) and 96 patients receiving standard treatment without neoadjuvant therapy (NoNA group). The MaxStat package of R identified the optimal cut-off point for waiting time to radiotherapy., Results: OS was similar in the NA and NoNA groups. Median waiting time to radiotherapy after surgery was 13 weeks for the NA group and 4.2 weeks for the NoNA group. The longest OS was attained by patients who started radiotherapy after 12 weeks and the shortest by patients who started radiotherapy within 4 weeks (12.3 vs 6.6 months) (P = 0.05). OS was 6.6 months for patients who started radiotherapy before the optimal cutoff of 6.43 weeks and 19.1 months for those who started after this time (P = 0.005). Patients who completed radiotherapy had longer OS than those who did not, in all 215 patients and in the NA and NoNA groups (P = 0.000). In several multivariate analyses, completing radiotherapy was a universally favorable prognostic factor, while neoadjuvant therapy was never identified as a negative prognostic factor., Conclusion: In our series of unresected patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment, in spite of the delay in starting radiotherapy, OS was not inferior to that of a similar group of patients with no delay in starting radiotherapy.

To assess the value of resection in glioblastoma based on pre-surgical tumor characteristics and a subsequent staging system. The lack of a staging system for glioblastoma hinders the analysis of treatment outcome. We classified 292 uniformly treated glioblastoma patients as stage I, II, or III based on tumor size, location, and eloquence and then analyzed the impact of the extent of resection. We classified 62% of patients as stage I, 25.3% as stage II, and 12.7% as stage III. Gross total resection (GTR) was performed mainly in stage I rather than stage II or III patients (79.2% vs. 14.6% vs. 6.3%; P < 0.001). Overall survival (OS) was 17.7, 14.6, and 10.8 months for stage I, II, and III patients, respectively (P = 0.005). Longer OS was significantly associated with greater extent of resection, younger age, KPS ≥ 70%, MGMT methylation, lower stage, and tumor ≤ 5 cm. In the subgroups of stage I (P = 0.04) and stage II (P < 0.001)-but not stage III-patients, GTR and partial resection (PR) were associated with longer OS. We constructed several multivariable models including different variables, and greater extent of resection, smaller tumor size, and MGMT methylation consistently emerged as independent markers of longer OS. This staging system provides a feasible tool for comparison of results. We confirmed the value of partial resection in stage I and II patients, in contrast to some reports suggesting that biopsy only is sufficient when gross total resection cannot be safely achieved.