Dataset Information

Prognostic Evaluation of Neurological Assessment of the Neuro-Oncology Scale in Glioblastoma Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aims of this study were to investigate the role of the Neurological Assessment of Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale in predicting the prognosis of patients with glioblastoma, and compare these results to predicted data of the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)/World Health Organization (WHO) performance status. Additionally, we examined other prognostic factors in glioblastoma patients.

Methods

The medical records of 76 patients with a new diagnosis of histologically ascertained glioblastoma in the period from January 2002 to December 2015 at the authors' institution were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical factors, including epidemiologic, radiologic, and therapeutic values were reviewed as well as the performance status assessed by the KPS, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale.

Results

The mean overall survival was 19.8 months (95% confidence interval 15.2-25.4 months). At initial diagnosis, the mean value [±standard deviation (SD)] of KPS score, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale were 81 (±7.4), 1.3 (±0.6), and 7.3 (±3.8), respectively. Multivariate analysis for predicting survival showed odds ratios of KPS score, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale were 2.502 (?80 vs. <80; p=0.024), 1.691 (0-1 vs. 2-5; p=0.047), and 2.763 (0-7 vs. 8-23; p=0.020), respectively. At the time of progression, the mean value (±SD) of KPS score, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale were 69 (±8.2), 1.6 (±0.7), and 11.4 (±4.2), respectively; multivariate analysis for predicting survival showed that the odd ratios for KPS score, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale were 2.007 (?80 vs. <80; p=0.035), 1.321 (0-1 vs. 2-5; p=0.143), and 3.182 (0-7 vs. 8-23; p=0.002), respectively.

Conclusion

The NANO scale provided a more detailed and objective measure of neurologic function than that currently used for predicting the prognosis of glioblastoma patients, especially at the time of progression.

SUBMITTER: Lee J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5932296 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prognostic Evaluation of Neurological Assessment of the Neuro-Oncology Scale in Glioblastoma Patients.

Lee Jiwook J Park Sung Hyun SH Kim Young Zoon YZ

Brain tumor research and treatment 20180402 1

<h4>Background</h4>The aims of this study were to investigate the role of the Neurological Assessment of Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale in predicting the prognosis of patients with glioblastoma, and compare these results to predicted data of the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)/World Health Organization (WHO) performance status. Additionally, we examined other prognostic factors in glioblastoma patients.<h4>Methods</h4>The medical records of 76 patien ...[more]

PMID: 29644808

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMRI remains the preferred imaging investigation for glioblastoma. Appropriate and timely neuroimaging in the follow-up period is considered to be important in making management decisions. There is a paucity of evidence-based information in current UK, European and international guidelines regarding the optimal timing and type of neuroimaging following initial neurosurgical treatment. This study assessed the current imaging practices amongst UK neuro-oncology centres, thus providing baseline data and informing future practice.MethodsThe lead neuro-oncologist, neuroradiologist and neurosurgeon from every UK neuro-oncology centre were invited to complete an online survey. Participants were asked about current and ideal imaging practices following initial treatment.ResultsNinety-two participants from all 31 neuro-oncology centres completed the survey (100% response rate). Most centres routinely performed an early post-operative MRI (87%, 27/31), whereas only a third performed a pre-radiotherapy MRI (32%, 10/31). The number and timing of scans routinely performed during adjuvant TMZ treatment varied widely between centres. At the end of the adjuvant period, most centres performed an MRI (71%, 22/31), followed by monitoring scans at 3 monthly intervals (81%, 25/31). Additional short-interval imaging was carried out in cases of possible pseudoprogression in most centres (71%, 22/31). Routine use of advanced imaging was infrequent; however, the addition of advanced sequences was the most popular suggestion for ideal imaging practice, followed by changes in the timing of EPMRI.ConclusionVariations in neuroimaging practices exist after initial glioblastoma treatment within the UK. Multicentre, longitudinal, prospective trials are needed to define the optimal imaging schedule for assessment.Key points• Variations in imaging practices exist in the frequency, timing and type of interval neuroimaging after initial treatment of glioblastoma within the UK. • Large, multicentre, longitudinal, prospective trials are needed to define the optimal imaging schedule for assessment.

Project description:BackgroundIt remains unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed neuro-oncology clinical practice, training, and research efforts.MethodsWe performed an international survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents, April 24-May 17, 2020. We assessed clinical practice and research environments, institutional preparedness and support, and perceived impact on patients.ResultsOf 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were US-based and 314 (55%) international. Ninety-four percent of participants reported changes in their clinical practice. Ninety-five percent of respondents converted at least some practice to telemedicine. Ten percent of practitioners felt the need to see patients in person, specifically because of billing concerns and pressure from their institutions. Sixty-seven percent of practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial, including 62% suspending phase III trial enrollments. More than 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk for COVID-19. Seventy-one percent of clinicians feared for their own personal safety or that of their families, specifically because of their clinical duties; 20% had inadequate personal protective equipment. While 69% reported increased stress, 44% received no psychosocial support from their institutions. Thirty-seven percent had salary reductions and 63% of researchers temporarily closed their laboratories. However, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient satisfaction, communication quality, and technology use to deliver care and mediate interactions with other practitioners.ConclusionsThe pandemic has changed treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options. Institutional lack of support created clinician and researcher anxiety. Communication with patients was satisfactory. We make recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward and address the personal challenges of providers and researchers.

Dataset Information

Prognostic Evaluation of Neurological Assessment of the Neuro-Oncology Scale in Glioblastoma Patients.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Prognostic Evaluation of Neurological Assessment of the Neuro-Oncology Scale in Glioblastoma Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets