BACKGROUND
Laser ablation (LA) is used as an upfront treatment in patients with deep seated newly diagnosed Glioblastoma (nGBM).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the outcomes of LA in patients with nGBM and compare them with a matched biopsy-only cohort.
METHODS
Twenty-four nGBM patients underwent upfront LA at Cleveland clinic, Washington University in St. Louis, and Yale University (6/2011-12/2014) followed by chemo/radiotherapy. Also, 24 out of 171 nGBM patients with biopsy followed by chemo/radiotherapy were matched based on age (< 70 vs ≥ 70), gender, tumor location (deep vs lobar), and volume (<11 cc vs ≥11 cc). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease-specific PFS and OS were outcome measures. Three prognostic groups were identified based on extent of tumor ablation by thermal-damage-threshold (TDT)-lines.
RESULTS
The median tumor volume in LA (n = 24) and biopsy only (n = 24) groups was 9.3 cm3 and 8.2 cm3 respectively. Overall, median estimate of OS and PFS in LA cohort was 14.4 and 4.3 mo compared to 15.8 mo and 5.9 mo for biopsy only cohort. On multivariate analysis, favorable TDT-line prognostic groups were associated with lower incidence of disease specific death (P = .03) and progression (P = .05) compared to other groups including biopsy only cohort. Only age (<70 yr, P = .02) and tumor volume (<11 cc, P = .03) were favorable prognostic factors for OS.
CONCLUSION
The maximum tumor coverage by LA followed by radiation/chemotherapy is an effective treatment modality in patients with nGBM, compared to biopsy only cohort. The TDT-line prognostic groups were independent predictor of disease specific death and progression after LA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.