ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2020
Geographic and socioeconomic considerations for glioblastoma treatment in the elderly at a national level: a US perspective.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Area-level socioeconomic status is positively correlated with glioblastoma incidence and prognosis in the United States.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Optimal managements of elderly patients with glioblastoma.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma in Elderly Patients.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
- Disparities in Reported Testing for 1p/19q Codeletion in Oligodendroglioma and Oligoastrocytoma Patients: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Lack of survival advantage among re-resected elderly glioblastoma patients: a SEER-Medicare study.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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment for glioblastoma (GBM) in elderly (age > 65 years) patients can be affected by multiple geographic and socioeconomic parameters. Correspondingly, the aim of this study was to determine trends in treatment of elderly GBM patients in the United States.
methodsAll GBM patients in the U.S. National Cancer Database between 2005 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Status of treatment by triple therapy (resection, chemotherapy, and radiation) were summarized and analyzed by U.S. Census region.
resultsThere were 44 338 GBM patients included, with 21 573 (49%) elderly and 22 765 (51%) nonelderly patients with median ages 72 years (range, 65-90 years) and 47 years (range, 40-64 years), respectively. Compared to nonelderly patients, elderly patients had significantly lower odds of being treated by triple therapy (odds ratio, OR = 0.54) as a whole, and its individual elements of resection (OR = 0.78), chemotherapy (OR = 0.46), radiation therapy (OR = 0.52). This was reflected in each U.S. Census region, with the lowest odds of being treated with triple therapy, surgical resection, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy in New England (OR = 0.51) Mountain (OR = 0.66), West North Central (OR = 0.38), and the Middle Atlantic (OR = 0.44), respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed multiple socioeconomic parameters that significantly predicted lower odds of triple therapy in the elderly.
conclusionsIn the United States alone, there exists geographic disparity in the treatment outcomes of elderly GBM patients. Multiple socioeconomic parameters can influence access to treatment modalities for elderly patients compared to younger patients in different geographic regions, and public health initiatives targeting these aspects may prove beneficial conceptually to optimize and homogenize clinical outcomes.
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.