Glioblastoma multiform prognosis beyond craniotomy and chemo irradiation

Received: 28-Jan-2022, Manuscript No. M- 57754; Accepted: 26-Feb-2022, Pre QC No. P- 57754; Editor assigned: 31-Jan-2022, Pre QC No. P- 57754; Reviewed: 15-Feb-2022, QC No. Q- 57754; Revised: 25-Feb-2022, Manuscript No. R- 57754 ; Published: 28-Feb-2022

Introduction

Glioblastoma Multiform (GBM) is an aggressive primary brain glioma with poor outcome and prognosis. Approximately, it is account for 12% to 15% of all primary intracranial tumour and 60% to 75% of gliomas [1, 2]. Globally, brain tumours ranked in 20th level in the list of incidence of new cases of cancer. They were recorded 308,102 (1.6%) new cases of CNS tumours, with 251,329 (2.5%) deaths in 2020 [3]. Approximately, 68,000 new cases of high grade brain tumours diagnosed in the United States each year. Recently, gliomas account for nearly more than 80% of malignant brain tumours. According to WHO grade IV tumour is the most common primary malignant brain tumour [4]. Generally, it present in fifth or sixth decade of life and more prevalent in man than women [1]. Based on multidisciplinary approach, the standard management for GBM is resection followed by radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy with Temozolomide (TMZ), and then maintenance TMZ [3]. Several randomized trials showed that concomitant and adjuvant TMZ in addition to postoperative radiotherapy improved the survival of patients, and risen the median survival to 15 months [5-7]. Here, this study aimed to describe clinical features, treatment schedules and determine prognostic factors that impact survival in GBM.

Methods

Retrospectively, we reviewed oncology records and histopathological reports of GBM patients from 2011 to 2021. The following data was collected: demographic profile (age and gender); Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) [8]; gliomas site, surgery and treatment regimens. In general, data collected when frequently patients visited the outpatient clinic or during mobile interview with patients or relatives. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 23.0 (IBM, NY, USA). Prognostic factors were determined by logistic analysis test. Any p-value below 0.05 indicates statistical significance.

Results

The characteristics of the patients and management are summarized in Table 1. We could divided patients to twogroups according to age, fifty and below (19, 38%), and above fifty (31, 62%). Male to female ratio was 1.5:1. In relation to KPS, 30% were better score (≥90), 44% were have good score (70-80), and 26% were within fair score (<70). Parietal and temporal lobes were the most common parts involved by GBM in 34% and 36% respectively. Frontal lobe was the lowest one. Most of patients underwent excisional biopsy in (38, 76%). All patients received the standard treatment included surgery and post-operative radiotherapy 60 Gy in 30 fractions with or without concurrent and/or maintenance TMZ. The prognostic impact of various variables is described in Table 2. In Logistic analysis using, patients with age >50, and KPS<90, worse factors as compared to others. Otherwise, adjuvant therapy and lobe involvement were found to be independent prognostic factors GBM.

Tab. 1. Patients and treatment characteristics

Tab. 2. Prognostic factors in the Logistic analysis

Discussion

Many studies revealed that the prognosis of GBM has not showed much improvement over the last few decades. The established standard treatment for GBM consist of maximal safe resection margins followed by radiotherapy with or without concurrent and adjuvant TMZ [3]. A total gross resection is not always possible due to the tumour infiltration into the surrounding brain parenchyma which may lead to dysfunction, therefor; radiotherapy has to be delivered to take care of the residual masses. GBM survival is poor; therefor determine prognostic factors affecting this survival in native patients are necessary. All patients underwent craniotomy and adjuvant treatment. The patients baseline characteristics were similar to other reviewed studies with M:F ratio of 1.5:1 and the median age of patients in this study is 50 years old. This difference from US patients due to the lower life expectancy of the Iraqi population [9]. There is no difference in prognosis between men and women. The findings were in line with several studies [10-12]. However, other series showed better survival in women compared to men [13-15]. An experimental in vivo study on rats with GBM Expressing Estrogen Receptor-β (ERβ) demonstrate an increase of cytotoxic effect compared to GBM without ERβ expression. Overexpression of ERβ will drop the proliferation of cancer cells and suppress the growth of GBM with improvement the response of therapy due to the effect of the reproductive hormone on GBM [16].

Age and performance status are the most important variables affecting patients prognosis in GBM. Curran et al, agree with our data and found a better prognosis in patients who were <50 years old and KPS of 90-100 [17].

Recently, GBM studies consistently stated that the older the age of the patient when diagnosed with GBM, the poorer prognosis and survival [10-15, 18, 19]. Besides the different biological nature of GBM in older patients, poorer prognosis may be caused by a reduction to tolerate medication in older patients [20]. Also, low KPS often associated with the patient’s inability in tolerating an overly aggressive treatment and increased morbidity [21].

This study showed that most of patients underwent biopsy only, which is an impaction on prognosis and survival of GBM, since poorer survival associated with residual tumour size [22-26]. However, the lower the size and volume, the better the survival and prognosis of GBM patients. This study showed no statistically difference in the prognosis from the administration of adjuvant treatment. However, there is a trend toward better prognosis in the group that received concurrent chemo radiation and adjuvant TMZ, which supported by several randomized trials that benefit where recorded in patients who received adjuvant concurrent chemo radiation and adjuvant TMZ compared to patients who treated by adjuvant radiation only [6, 27-29]. A randomized study by Kocher and his colleagues showed no difference of survival in patients who received concurrent chemo radiation without adjuvant TMZ compared to patients who received adjuvant radiation only [30]. In current study, GBM involving the parietal and temporal lobes showed no significant poorer prognosis. Kumar et al, found poorer survivability in GBM involving the parietal lobe, corpus callosum, and brainstem [18]. The study by Awad et al, Tian et al. and Wee et al. also reported poor survival in patients with GBM located in the periventricular, brainstem, corpus callosum and basal ganglia [12, 14, 31]. However, several other studies showed that tumour location does not affect survival [32-34].

Conclusion

Older age and low performance status is a dependent prognostic factor for the clinical outcome of GBM. Multimodalities therapy may be not affected the prognosis or survival of GBM.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study was conducted following the protocol of the Ethical Committee and written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

Authors Contribution

All the authors participate in the design, collection and analysis of the data of the research.

References

1. Ostrom QT, Cioffi G, Gittleman H, Patil N, Waite K, et al. CBTRUS Statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2012–2016. Neuro Oncol. 2019;21:v1-100.

   Google Scholar    Cross Ref

2. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, Deimling A von, Figarella-Branger D, et al. The 2016 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131:803-820.

   Google Scholar   Cross Ref

3. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I,et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249.

   Google Scholar   Cross Ref

4. Ostrom QT, Bauchet L, Davis FG, Deltour I, Fisher JL, et al. The epidemiology of glioma in adults: a "state of the science" review. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16:896-913.

   Google Scholar   Cross Ref

5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Central nervous system cancers. 2019;123.

   Google Scholar   Cross Ref

6. Stupp R, Mason WP, Van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;10:352:987-996.

   Google Scholar   Cross Ref

7. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Taphoorn MJ, , et al. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:459-466.

   Google Scholar   Cross Ref

8. West HJ, Jin JO. Performance Status in Patients With Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1.

   Google Scholar   Cross Ref

9. World Health Organization. Life expectancy and Healthy life expectancy Data by country. 2016.

   Google Scholar   Cross Ref

10. Ahn S, Park J-SS, Song JH, Jeun S-SS, Hong Y-KK. Effect of a time delay for concomitant chemoradiation after surgery for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a single-institution study with subgroup analysis according to the extent of tumor resection. World Neurosurg. 2020;133:e640-e645.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

11. Nizamutdinov D, Stock EM, Dandashi JA, Vasquez EA, Mao Y, Dayawansa S, et al. Prognostication of survival outcomes in patients diagnosed with glioblastoma. world Neurosurg. 2018;109:e67-e74.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

12. Wee CW, Kim E, Kim TM, Park C-KK, Kim JW, et al. Impact of interim progression during the surgery-to-radiotherapy interval and its predictors in glioblastoma treated with temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy. J Neurooncol. 2017;134:169-175.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

13. Blumenthal DT, Won M, Mehta MP, Gilbert MR, Brown PD, et al. Short delay in initiation of radiotherapy for patients with glioblastoma-effect of concurrent chemotherapy: a secondary analysis from the NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group database. Neuro Oncol. 2018;20:966-974.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

14. Tian M, Ma W, Chen Y, Yu Y, Zhu D, et al. Impact of gender on the survival of patients with glioblastoma. Biosci Rep. 2018;38:1-9.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

15. Tseng M-Y, Tseng J-H. Survival analysis for adult glioma in England and Wales. J Formos Med Assoc. 2005;104:341-348.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

16. Zhou M, Sareddy GR, Li M, Liu J, Luo Y, Venkata PP, et al. Estrogen receptor beta enhances chemotherapy response of GBM cells by down regulating DNA damage response pathways. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1-10.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

17. Curran WJ, Scott CB, Horton J, Nelson JS, Weinstein AS, et al. Recursive partitioning analysis of prognostic factors in three radiation therapy oncology group malignant glioma trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:704-710.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

18. Kumar N, Kumar P, Angurana S, Khosla D, Mukherjee K, Aggarwal R, et al. Evaluation of outcome and prognostic factors in patients of glioblastoma multiforme: A single institution experience. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2013;4:S46-S55.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

19. Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Prados MD. Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: Recursive partitioning analysis. Neuro Oncol. 2004;6:227-235.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

20. Kita D, Ciernik IF, Vaccarella S, Franceschi S, Kleihues P, et al. Age as a predictive factor in glioblastomas: Population-based study. Neuroepidemiol. 2009;33:17-22.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

21. Tabchi S, Kassouf E, Florescu M, Tehfe M, Blais N. Factors influencing treatment selection and survival in advanced lung cancer. Curr Oncol. 2017;24:e115-e122.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

22. Bette S, Barz M, Wiestler B, Huber T, Gerhardt J, Buchmann N, et al. Prognostic value of tumor volume in glioblastoma patients: size also matters for patients with incomplete resection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:558-564.

    Google Scholar    Cross Ref

23. Haichana KL, Jusue-Torres I, Navarro-Ramirez R, Raza SM, Pascual-Gallego M, et al. Establishing percent resection and residual volume thresholds affecting survival and recurrence for patients with newly diagnosed intracranial glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16:113-122.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

24. Roelz R, Strohmaier D, Jabbarli R, Kraeutle R, Egger K, et al. Residual tumor volume as best outcome predictor in low grade glioma-a nine-years near-randomized survey of surgery vs. biopsy.  Sci Rep. 2016;6:1-9.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

25. Woo PYM, Ho JMK, Tse TPK, Lam SW, Mak CHK, et al. Determining a cut-off residual tumor volume threshold for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy: A multicenter cohort study. J Clin Neurosci. 2019;63:134-141.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

26. Ellingson BM, Abrey LE, Nelson SJ, Kaufmann TJ, Garcia J, et al. Validation of postoperative residual contrast-enhancing tumor volume as an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2018;20:1240-1250.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

27. Joo JD, Chang JH, Kim JH, Hong YK, Kim YH, et al. Temozolomide during and after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastomas: A prospective multicenter study of Korean patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012;52:92-97.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

28. Karacetin D, Okten B, Yalcin B, Incekara O. Concomitant temozolomide and radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme. J BUON. 16:133-137.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

29. Szczepanek D, Marchel A, MoskaÅ? M, Krupa M, Kunert P, et al. Efficacy of concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide in glioblastoma treatment. A multicentre randomized study. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2013;47:101-108.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

30. Kocher M, Frommolt P, Borberg SK, Rühl U, Steingräber M, et al. Randomized study of postoperative radiotherapy and simultaneous temozolomide without adjuvant chemotherapy for glioblastoma. Strahlentherapie und Onkol. 2008;184:572-579.

    Google Scholar   Cross Ref

31. Awad AW, Karsy M, Sanai N, Spetzler R, Zhang Y, et al. Impact of removed tumor volume and location on patient outcome in glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2017;135:161-171.

    Google Scholar  Cross Ref

32. Carr MT, Hochheimer CJ, Rock AK, Dincer A, Ravindra L, et al. Comorbid Medical Conditions as Predictors of Overall Survival in Glioblastoma Patients. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1-8.

      Google Scholar  Cross Ref

33. Carroll KT, Bryant AK, Hirshman B, Alattar AA, Joshi R, et al. Interaction between the contributions of tumor location, tumor grade, and patient age to the survival benefit associated with gross total resection. World Neurosurg. 2018;111:e790-e798.

    Google Scholar  Cross Ref

34. Ghosh M, Shubham S, Mandal K, Trivedi V, Chauhan R, et al. Survival and prognostic factors for glioblastoma multiforme: Retrospective single-institutional study. Indian J Cancer. 2017;54:362.

    Google Scholar  Cross Ref