ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2020
A balanced score to predict survival of elderly patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing time-trend bias in glioblastoma prognosis over 2 decades of clinical trials.Neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Prediction of Survival in the Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma using Cumulative Inflammatory Markers Score.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2025Article
- Risk factors for unintended discontinuation of tumor-specific treatment after tumor surgery in glioblastoma patients aged 70 or older.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Prognostic analysis and nomogram construction for older patients with IDH-wild-type glioblastoma.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Optimal managements of elderly patients with glioblastoma.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Comparison of carbon ion and photon reirradiation for recurrent glioblastoma.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2022Article
- Radiotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma in the Elderly: What Is the Standard?Brain tumor research and treatment · 2022Review
- Effectiveness and Safety of the Traditional Chinese Medicine Treatment (Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Review
- Molecular Biology in Treatment Decision Processes-Neuro-Oncology Edition.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Elderly Patients With Glioblastoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Article
- Predicting survival in anaplastic astrocytoma patients in a single-center cohort of 108 patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Surgical and oncological score to estimate the survival benefit of resection and chemoradiotherapy in elderly (≥70 years) glioblastoma patients: A preliminary analysis.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
- Age is not enough: Clinical and therapeutic predictors of survival in elderly patients with de novo glioblastoma.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past years, several treatment regimens have been recommended for elderly patients with glioblastoma (GBM), ranging from ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) over monochemotherapy (ChT) to combined radiochemotherapy (RChT). The current guidelines recommend active treatment in elderly patients in cases with a KPS of at least 60%. We established a score for selecting patients with a very poor prognosis from patients with a better prognosis.
methodsOne hundred eighty one patients ≥65 years old, histologically diagnosed with GBM, were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical characteristics were analysed for their impact on the overall survival (OS). Factors which were significant in univariate analysis (log-rank test, p < 0.05) were included in a multi-variate model (multi-variate Cox regression analysis, MVA). The 9-month OS for the significant factors after MVA (p < 0.05) was included in a prognostic score. Score sums with a median OS of < and > 6 months were summarized as Group A and B, respectively.
resultsAge, KPS, MGMT status, the extent of resection, aphasia after surgery and motor dysfunction after surgery were significantly associated with OS on univariate analysis (p < 0.05). On MVA age (p 0.002), MGMT promotor methylation (p 0.013) and Karnofsky performance status (p 0.005) remained significant and were included in the score. Patients were divided into two groups, group A (median OS of 2.7 months) and group B (median OS of 7.8 months). The score was of prognostic significance, independent of the adjuvant treatment regimen.
conclusionsThe score distinguishes patients with a poor prognosis from patients with a better prognosis. Its inclusion in future retrospective or prospective trials could help enhance the comparability of results. Before its employment on a routine basis, external validation is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.