Dataset Information

Treatment approach and survival from glioblastoma: results from a population-based retrospective cohort study from Western Norway.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate treatment and survival from glioblastoma in a real-world setting.

Design and settings

A population-based retrospective cohort study from Western Norway.

Participants

363 patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with glioblastoma between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2014.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Overall survival and survival rates determined by Kaplan-Meier method, groups compared by log-rank test. Associations between clinical characteristics and treatment approach assessed by logistic regression. Associations between treatment approach and outcome analysed by Cox regression.

Results

Median overall survival was 10.2 months (95% CI 9.1 to 11.3). Resection was performed in 221 patients (60.9%), and was inversely associated with age over 70 years, higher comorbidity burden, deep-seated tumour localisation and multifocality. Median survival was 13.7 months (95% CI 12.1 to 15.4) in patients undergoing tumour resection, 8.3 months (95% CI 6.6 to 9.9) in patients undergoing biopsy and 4.5 months (95% CI 4.0 to 5.1) in patients where no surgical intervention was performed. Chemoradiotherapy according to the Stupp protocol was given to 157 patients (43%). Age over 70 years, higher comorbidity burden and cognitive impairment were associated with less intensive chemoradiotherapy. Median survival was 16.3 months (95% CI 14.1 to 18.5), 7.9 months (95% CI 6.7 to 9.0) and 2.0 months (95% CI 0.9 to 3.2) in patients treated according to the Stupp protocol, with less intensive chemoradiotherapy and with best supportive care, respectively. Surgical resection (HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.79)) and chemoradiotherapy according to the Stupp protocol (HR 0.09 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15)) were strongly associated with favourable overall survival, when adjusted for clinical variables.

Conclusions

In a real-world setting, less than half of the patients received full-course chemoradiotherapy, with a median survival comparable to results from clinical trials. Survival was considerably worse in patients receiving less intensive treatment. Our results point out a substantial risk of undertreating glioblastoma, especially in elderly patients.

SUBMITTER: Bjorland LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7959220 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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 OS in GBM patients. In conclusion, a moderate radiation dose escalation (> 60 Gy) was an independent predictor for longer OS in GBM patients. However, prospective studies including more patients with more information, such as molecular markers and completeness of resection, are needed to confirm our findings.

Project description:BackgroundEsophagectomy for esophageal cancer carries high morbidity and mortality, particularly in older patients. Transthoracic esophagectomy allows formal lymphadenectomy, but leads to greater perioperative morbidity and pain than transhiatal esophagectomy. Epidural analgesia may attenuate the stress response and be less immunosuppressive than opioids, potentially affecting long-term outcomes. These potential benefits may be more pronounced for transthoracic esophagectomy due to its greater physiologic impact. We evaluated the impact of epidural analgesia on survival and recurrence after transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients aged ≥66 years with locoregional esophageal cancer diagnosed 1994-2009 who underwent esophagectomy were identified, with follow-up through December 31, 2013. Epidural receipt and surgical approach were identified from Medicare claims. Survival analyses adjusting for hospital esophagectomy volume, surgical approach, and epidural use were performed. A subgroup analysis restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma patients was performed.ResultsAmong 1,921 patients, 38% underwent transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 730) and 62% underwent transthoracic esophagectomy (n = 1,191). 61% (n = 1,169) received epidurals and 39% (n = 752) did not. Epidural analgesia was associated with transthoracic approach and higher volume hospitals. Patients with epidural analgesia had better 90-day survival. Five-year survival was higher with transhiatal esophagectomy (37.2%) than transthoracic esophagectomy (31.0%, p = 0.006). Among transthoracic esophagectomy patients, epidural analgesia was associated with improved 5-year survival (33.5% epidural versus 26.5% non-epidural, p = 0.012; hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.70, 0.93]). Among the subgroup of esophageal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, epidural analgesia remained associated with improved 5-year survival (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.67, 0.96]); this survival benefit persisted in sensitivity analyses adjusting for propensity to receive an epidural.ConclusionAmong patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, including a subgroup restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma, epidural analgesia was associated with improved survival even after adjusting for other factors.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify inequalities in cancer survival rates for patients with a history of severe psychiatric illness (SPI) compared to those with no history of mental illness and explore differences in the provision of recommended cancer treatment as a potential explanation.DesignPopulation-based retrospective cohort study using linked cancer registry and administrative data at ICES.SettingThe universal healthcare system in Ontario, Canada.ParticipantsColorectal cancer (CRC) patients diagnosed between April 1st, 2007 and December 31st, 2012. SPI history (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders, other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders or major depressive disorders) was determined using hospitalization, emergency department, and psychiatrist visit data and categorized as 'no history of mental illness, 'outpatient SPI history', and 'inpatient SPI history'.Main outcome measuresCancer-specific survival, non-receipt of surgical resection, and non-receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation.Results24,507 CRC patients were included; 482 (2.0%) had an outpatient SPI history and 258 (1.0%) had an inpatient SPI history. Individuals with an SPI history had significantly lower survival rates and were significantly less likely to receive guideline recommended treatment than CRC patients with no history of mental illness. The adjusted HR for cancer-specific death was 1.69 times higher for individuals with an inpatient SPI (95% CI 1.36-2.09) and 1.24 times higher for individuals with an outpatient SPI history (95% CI 1.04-1.48). Stage II and III CRC patients with an inpatient SPI history were 2.15 times less likely (95% CI 1.07-4.33) to receive potentially curative surgical resection and 2.07 times less likely (95% CI 1.72-2.50) to receive adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy. These findings were consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsIndividuals with an SPI history experience inequalities in colorectal cancer care and survival within a universal healthcare system. Increasing advocacy and the availability of resources to support individuals with an SPI within the cancer system are warranted to reduce the potential for unnecessary harm.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate symptoms and self-reported health of patients conservatively treated for aortic stenosis (AS) and to identify factors associated with treatment decision and patient outcomes.DesignA cross-sectional survey with an 18-month follow-up.SettingOne tertiary university hospital in Western Norway.ParticipantsIn all, 1436 patients were diagnosed with AS between 2000 and 2012, and those 245 still under conservative treatment in 2013 were included in this study.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures were symptoms and self-reported health status. Secondary outcomes were treatment decision and patient survival after 18 months.ResultsA total of 136 patients with mean (SD) age 79 (12) years, 52% men responded. Among conservatively treated patients 77% were symptomatic. The symptom most frequently experienced was dyspnoea. Symptomatic patients reported worse physical and mental health compared with asymptomatic patients (effect size 1.24 and 0.74, respectively). In addition, symptomatic patients reported significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression compared with asymptomatic patients. However, symptom status did not correlate with haemodynamic severity of AS. After 18 months, 117 (86%) were still alive, 20% had undergone surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and 7% transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). When adjusting for age, gender, symptomatic status, severity of AS and European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE), patients with severe AS had more than sixfold chance of being scheduled for AVR or TAVI compared with those with moderate AS (HR 6.3, 95% CI 1.9 to 21.2, p=0.003). Patients with EuroSCORE ≥11 had less chance for undergoing AVR or TAVI compared with those with EuroSCORE ≤5 (HR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.46, p=0.007).ConclusionsSymptoms affected both physical and mental health in conservatively treated patients with AS. Many patients with symptomatic severe AS are not scheduled for surgery, despite the recommendations in current guidelines. The referral practice for AVR is a path for further investigation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Survival from colorectal cancer has been shown to be lower in Denmark and England than in comparable high-income countries. We used data from national colorectal cancer registries to assess whether differences in the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery could contribute to international differences in colorectal cancer survival. METHODS:In this population-based study, we collected data from all patients aged 18-99 years diagnosed with primary, invasive, colorectal adenocarcinoma from Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2012, in Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden, from national colorectal cancer registries. We estimated age-standardised net survival using multivariable modelling, and we compared the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery by stage and age. We used logistic regression to predict the resectional surgery status patients would have had if they had been treated as in the best performing country, given their individual characteristics. FINDINGS:We extracted registry data for 139 457 adult patients with invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma: 12 958 patients in Denmark, 97 466 in England, 11 450 in Norway, and 17 583 in Sweden. 3-year colon cancer survival was lower in England (63·9%, 95% CI 63·5-64·3) and Denmark (65·7%, 64·7-66·8) than in Norway (69·5%, 68·4-70·5) and Sweden (72·1%, 71·2-73·0). Rectal cancer survival was lower in England (69·7%, 69·1-70·3) than in the other three countries (Denmark 72·5%, 71·1-74·0; Sweden 74·1%, 72·7-75·4; and Norway 75·0%, 73·1-76·8). We found no significant differences in survival for patients with stage I disease in any of the four countries. 3-year survival after stage II or III rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was consistently lower in England (stage II rectal cancer 86·4%, 95% CI 85·0-87·6; stage III rectal cancer 75·5%, 74·2-76·7; and stage IV colon cancer 20·5%, 19·9-21·1) than in Norway (94·1%, 91·5-96·0; 83·4%, 80·1-86·1; and 33·0%, 31·0-35·1) and Sweden (92·9%, 90·8-94·6; 80·6%, 78·2-82·7; and 23·7%, 22·0-25·3). 3-year survival after stage II rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was also lower in England than in Denmark (stage II rectal cancer 91·2%, 88·8-93·1; and stage IV colon cancer 23·5%, 21·9-25·1). The total proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery ranged from 47 803 (68·4%) of 69 867 patients in England to 9582 (81·3%) of 11 786 in Sweden for colon cancer, and from 16 544 (59·9%) of 27 599 in England to 4106 (70·8%) of 5797 in Sweden for rectal cancer. This range was widest for patients older than 75 years (colon cancer 19 078 [59·7%] of 31 946 patients in England to 4429 [80·9%] of 5474 in Sweden; rectal cancer 4663 [45·7%] of 10 195 in England to 1342 [61·9%] of 2169 in Sweden), and the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was consistently lowest in England. The age gradient of the decline in the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was steeper in England than in the other three countries in all stage categories. In the hypothetical scenario where all patients were treated as in Sweden, given their age, sex, and disease stage, the largest increase in resectional surgery would be for patients with stage III rectal cancer in England (increasing from 70·3% to 88·2%). INTERPRETATION:Survival from colon cancer and rectal cancer in England and colon cancer in Denmark was lower than in Norway and Sweden. Survival paralleled the relative provision of resectional surgery in these countries. Differences in patient selection for surgery, especially in patients older than 75 years or individuals with advanced disease, might partly explain these differences in international colorectal cancer survival. FUNDING:Early Diagnosis Policy Research Grant from Cancer Research UK (C7923/A18348).