000873534 001__ 873534
000873534 005__ 20210130004445.0
000873534 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.3171/2018.7.JNS18228
000873534 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0022-3085
000873534 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1933-0693
000873534 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:70413529
000873534 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:30544353
000873534 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000490249600018
000873534 037__ $$aFZJ-2020-00802
000873534 082__ $$a610
000873534 1001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aStavrinou, Pantelis$$b0$$eCorresponding author
000873534 245__ $$aSurvival effects of a strategy favoring second-line multimodal treatment compared to supportive care in glioblastoma patients at first progression
000873534 260__ $$aCharlottesville, Va.$$bAmerican Assoc. of Neurological Surgeons$$c2019
000873534 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000873534 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000873534 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1580742899_4996
000873534 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000873534 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000873534 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000873534 520__ $$aOBJECTIVEData on the survival effects of supportive care compared to second-line multimodal treatment for glioblastoma progression are scarce. Thus, the authors assessed survival in two population-based, similar cohorts from two European university hospitals with different treatment strategies at first progression.METHODSThe authors retrospectively identified patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated at two neurooncological centers. After diagnosis, patients from both centers received identical treatments, but at tumor progression each center used a different approach. In the majority of cases, at center A (Greece), supportive care or a single therapeutic modality was offered at progression, whereas center B (Germany) provided multimodal second-line therapy. The main outcome measure was survival after progression (SaP). The influence of the treatment strategy on SaP was assessed by multivariate analysis.RESULTSOne hundred three patients from center A and 156 from center B were included. Tumor progression was observed in 86 patients (center A) and 136 patients (center B). At center A, 53 patients (72.6%) received supportive care alone, while at center B, 91 patients (80.5%) received second-line treatment. Progression-free survival at both centers was similar (9.4 months [center A] vs 9.0 months [center B]; p = 0.97), but SaP was significantly improved in the patients treated with multimodal second-line therapy at center B (7 months, 95% CI 5.3–8.7 months) compared to those treated with supportive care or a single therapeutic modality at center A (4.5 months, 95% CI 3.5–5.5 months; p = 0.003). In the multivariate analysis, the treatment center was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.17–2.15; p = 0.002).CONCLUSIONSTreatment strategy favoring multimodal second-line treatment over minimal treatment or supportive care at glioblastoma progression is associated with significantly better overall survival.
000873534 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572$$a572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)$$cPOF3-572$$fPOF III$$x0
000873534 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef
000873534 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aKalyvas, Aristotelis$$b1
000873534 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aGrau, Stefan$$b2
000873534 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aHamisch, Christina$$b3
000873534 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)143792$$aGalldiks, Norbert$$b4$$ufzj
000873534 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aKatsigiannis, Sotirios$$b5
000873534 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aKabbasch, Christoph$$b6
000873534 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aTimmer, Marco$$b7
000873534 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aGoldbrunner, Roland$$b8
000873534 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aStranjalis, George$$b9
000873534 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2026156-1$$a10.3171/2018.7.JNS18228$$gVol. 131, no. 4, p. 1136 - 1141$$n4$$p1136 - 1141$$tJournal of neurosurgery$$v131$$x1933-0693$$y2019
000873534 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/873534/files/Stavrinou_2019_J%20Neurosurg_Survival%20effects%20of%20a%20strategy%20favoring%20second-line%20multimodal%20treatment.pdf$$yRestricted
000873534 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/873534/files/Stavrinou_2019_J%20Neurosurg_Survival%20effects%20of%20a%20strategy%20favoring%20second-line%20multimodal%20treatment.pdf?subformat=pdfa$$xpdfa$$yRestricted
000873534 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:873534$$pVDB
000873534 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)143792$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b4$$kFZJ
000873534 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-570$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-500$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bKey Technologies$$lDecoding the Human Brain$$v(Dys-)function and Plasticity$$x0
000873534 9141_ $$y2019
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bJ NEUROSURG-SPINE : 2017
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews
000873534 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000873534 920__ $$lyes
000873534 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406$$kINM-3$$lKognitive Neurowissenschaften$$x0
000873534 980__ $$ajournal
000873534 980__ $$aVDB
000873534 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406
000873534 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED