% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Stavrinou:873534,
author = {Stavrinou, Pantelis and Kalyvas, Aristotelis and Grau,
Stefan and Hamisch, Christina and Galldiks, Norbert and
Katsigiannis, Sotirios and Kabbasch, Christoph and Timmer,
Marco and Goldbrunner, Roland and Stranjalis, George},
title = {{S}urvival effects of a strategy favoring second-line
multimodal treatment compared to supportive care in
glioblastoma patients at first progression},
journal = {Journal of neurosurgery},
volume = {131},
number = {4},
issn = {1933-0693},
address = {Charlottesville, Va.},
publisher = {American Assoc. of Neurological Surgeons},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-00802},
pages = {1136 - 1141},
year = {2019},
abstract = {OBJECTIVEData 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.},
cin = {INM-3},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
pnm = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:30544353},
UT = {WOS:000490249600018},
doi = {10.3171/2018.7.JNS18228},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/873534},
}