No abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM) has the highest fatality rate among primary malignant brain tumors and typically tends to recur locally just adjacent to the original tumor site following surgical resection and adjuvant radiotherapy. We conducted a study to evaluate the survival outcomes between a standard dose (� 60 Gy) and moderate radiation dose escalation (>60 Gy), and to identify prognostic factors for GBM. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of primary GBM patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2016 in two referral hospitals in Taiwan. They were identified from the cancer registry database and followed up from the date of diagnosis to October 2018. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the two dose groups, and independent factors for survival were analyzed through Cox proportional hazard model. We also affirmed the results using Cox regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach. From our cancer registry database, 142 GBM patients were identified, and 84 of them fit the inclusion criteria. Of the 84 patients, 52 (62%) were males. The radiation dose ranged from 50.0 Gy to 66.6 Gy, but their treatment volumes were similar to the others. Fifteen (18%) patients received an escalated dose boost >60.0 Gy. The escalated group had a longer median PFS (15.4 vs. 7.9 months, p = 0.01 for log-rank test), and a longer median OS was also longer in the escalation group (33.8 vs. 12.5 months, p <0.001) than the reference group. Following a multivariate analysis, the escalated dose was identified as a significant predictor for good prognosis (PFS: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.23-0.98; OS: HR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.21-0.78). Using the LASSO approach, we found age > 70 (HR = 1.55), diagnosis after 2010 (HR = 1.42), and a larger radiation volume (� 250ml; HR = 0.81) were predictors of PFS. The escalated dose (HR = 0.47) and a larger radiation volume (HR = 0.76) were identified as predictors for better OS. Following detailed statistical analysis, a moderate radiation dose escalation (> 60 Gy) was found as an independent factor affecting

Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary intracranial malignancy. Previous studies found incidence of GBM varies substantially by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and survival also varies by country, ethnicity, and treatment. Gliosarcoma (GSM) and giant cell glioblastoma (GC-GBM) are different histologic variants of GBM with distinct clinico-pathologic entities. We conducted a study to compare epidemiology, survival, and prognostic factors among the three.Methods: We identified GBM patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2016 using the Taiwan Cancer Registry and followed them using the death registry. Survival was compared among conventional GBM and two histologic variants. The potential confounding factors evaluated in this study included registered year, age, sex, and treatment modality (resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy).Results: We enrolled 3,895 patients, including 3,732 (95.8%) with conventional GBM, 102 (2.6%) with GSM, and 61 (1.6%) with GC-GBM. GC-GBM patients had younger mean age at diagnosis (49.5 years) than conventional GBM patients (58.7 years) and GSM patients (61.3 years) (p &lt; 0.01). The three groups had similar sex distributions (p = 0.29). GC-GBM had a longer median survival [18.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 15.8–25.3 months] than conventional GBM (12.5, 95%CI: 12.0–13.0 months) and GSM (12.8, 95%CI: 9.2–16.2 months), and the differences in overall survival did not attain statistical significance (p = 0.08, log-rank test). In univariate analysis, GC-GBM had better survival than conventional GBM, but the hazard ratio (0.91) did not reach statistical significance (95%CI: 0.69–1.20) in the multivariate analysis. Young ages (≤ 40 years), female sex, resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy were factors associated with better survival in overall GBMs. In subtype analyses, these factors remained statistically significant for conventional GBM, as well as radiotherapy for GSM.Conclusion: Our analysis found conventional GBM and its variants shared similar poor survival. Factors with age ≤ 40 years, female sex, resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy were associated with better prognosis in conventional GBM patients.

Perihippocampal failure is a rare clinical scenario in brain metastatic cancer patients following hippocampal-avoidance (HA) whole-brain radiotherapy (HA-WBRT). The clinical features have not been fully identified because clinical data on intracranial failure after HA-WBRT are limited. It is thus necessary to accumulate clinical data.We retrospectively analyzed cancer patients with brain metastases who were diagnosed between January 2014 and September 2020 at a regional referral hospital. The medical records of patients who underwent HA-WBRT were reviewed. The clinical features of intracranial recurrence were described. Dosimetry parameters were compared in terms of deviation from the recommended protocol of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Report 0933.Twenty-four eligible patients with brain metastases who underwent HA-WBRT were identified; 13 (54%) were male. Seventeen patients (71%) had lung cancer, 6 (25%) had breast cancer, and 1 (4%) had liver cancer. The median overall survival was 12 months. Three patients developed intracranial failure during clinical follow-up, and 2 relapsed with intracranial failure in the perihippocampal region at 13 and 22 months, respectively. The perihippocampal failure rate was about 8%. One patient with small cell lung cancer received HA-prophylactic cranial irradiation; the minimum and maximum doses to the hippocampi were 6.8 and 10.7 Gy, respectively. Another patient with brain metastases from lung adenocarcinoma received HA-WBRT; the minimum and maximum doses to the hippocampi were 5.4 and 10.6 Gy, respectively.We reported unusual cases of intracranial failure in the perihippocampal region following HA-WBRT. Perihippocampal failure could be attributed to an under-dose of radiation partially or be resulted from aggressiveness of cancer per se. Further research on this topic is encouraged.

Background: Palliative care has historically been under-utilized in patients with glioblastoma. Furthermore, literature on the utilization of healthcare and life-sustaining interventions during the late-stage of glioblastoma has been limited. Aim: To identify and compare healthcare utilization and life-sustaining interventions between patients with glioblastoma who received palliative care and who did not based on patients identified retrospectively from Taiwan Cancer Registry between January 2007 and December 2017. Design: In this study, palliative care was defined on the basis of claims submitted to the National Health Insurance, which has a specific code for it. Variables included demographic characteristics, the utilization of healthcare services, and invasive life-sustaining interventions. Setting/participants: Of the 1994 patients with glioblastoma identified, 1784 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 613 (34%) of whom received palliative care. Results: The survival of patients with glioblastoma under palliative care was significantly longer than that of those without palliative care. Those without palliative care had significantly more frequent intensive care unit admissions and a longer cumulative length of intensive care unit stay. Regarding cardiopulmonary or respiratory treatments, patients without palliative care had significantly more invasive interventions than those with palliative care. Patients receiving palliative care had significantly lower odds than those without life-sustaining interventions. Conclusions: Our retrospective analysis reveals that glioblastoma patients without palliative care had greater odds of receiving life-sustaining treatments within 1 year before their death, although no gains in survival as compared to those that received palliative care. These findings highlight the urgent need for palliative care in caring for patients with glioblastoma.