Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Temozolomide (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Purpose: The role of obesity in glioblastoma remains unclear, as previous analyses have reported contradicting results. Here, we evaluate the prognostic impact of obesity in two trial populations; CeTeG/NOA-09 (n = 129) for MGMT methylated glioblastoma patients comparing temozolomide (TMZ) to lomustine/TMZ, and GLARIUS (n = 170) for MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma patients comparing TMZ to bevacizumab/irinotecan, both in addition to surgery and radiotherapy.
Methods: The impact of obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was investigated with Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests. A multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed including known prognostic factors as covariables.
Results: Overall, 22.6% of patients (67 of 297) were obese. Obesity was associated with shorter survival in patients with MGMT methylated glioblastoma (median OS 22.9 (95% CI 17.7–30.8) vs. 43.2 (32.5–54.4) months for obese and non-obese patients respectively, p = 0.001), but not in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma (median OS 17.1 (15.8–18.9) vs 17.6 (14.7–20.8) months, p = 0.26). The prognostic impact of obesity in MGMT methylated glioblastoma was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression (adjusted odds ratio: 2.57 (95% CI 1.53–4.31), p < 0.001) adjusted for age, sex, extent of resection, baseline steroids, Karnofsky performance score, and treatment arm.
Conclusion: Obesity was associated with shorter survival in MGMT methylated, but not in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma patients.
Purpose: Classification and treatment of WHO grade II/III gliomas have dramatically changed. Implementing molecular markers into the WHO classification raised discussions about the significance of grading and clinical trials showed overall survival (OS) benefits for combined radiochemotherapy. As molecularly stratified treatment data outside clinical trials are scarce, we conducted this retrospective study.
Methods: We identified 343 patients (1995–2015) with newly diagnosed WHO grade II/III gliomas and analyzed molecular markers, patient characteristics, symptoms, histology, treatment, time to treatment failure (TTF) and OS.
Results: IDH-status was available for all patients (259 mutant, 84 IDH1-R132H-non-mutant). Molecular subclassification was possible in 173 tumors, resulting in diagnosis of 80 astrocytomas and 93 oligodendrogliomas. WHO grading remained significant for OS in astrocytomas/IDH1-R132H-non-mutant gliomas (p < 0.01) but not for oligodendroglioma (p = 0.27). Chemotherapy (and temozolomide in particular) showed inferior OS compared to radiotherapy in astrocytomas (median 6.1/12.1 years; p = 0.03) and oligodendrogliomas (median 13.2/not reached (n.r.) years; p = 0.03). While radiochemotherapy improved TTF in oligodendroglioma (median radiochemotherapy n.r./chemotherapy 3.8/radiotherapy 7.3 years; p < 0.001/ = 0.06; OS data immature) the effect, mainly in combination with temozolomide, was weaker in astrocytomas (median radiochemotherapy 6.7/chemotherapy 2.3/radiotherapy 2.0 years; p < 0.001/ = 0.11) and did not translate to improved OS (median 8.4 years).
Conclusion: This is one of the largest retrospective, real-life datasets reporting treatment and outcome in low-grade gliomas incorporating molecular markers. Current histologic grading features remain prognostic in astrocytomas while being insignificant in oligodendroglioma with interfering treatment effects. Chemotherapy (temozolomide) was less effective than radiotherapy in both astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas while radiochemotherapy showed the highest TTF in oligodendrogliomas.