001     873534
005     20210130004445.0
024 7 _ |a 10.3171/2018.7.JNS18228
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a 0022-3085
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1933-0693
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a altmetric:70413529
|2 altmetric
024 7 _ |a pmid:30544353
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a WOS:000490249600018
|2 WOS
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2020-00802
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Stavrinou, Pantelis
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 0
|e Corresponding author
245 _ _ |a Survival effects of a strategy favoring second-line multimodal treatment compared to supportive care in glioblastoma patients at first progression
260 _ _ |a Charlottesville, Va.
|c 2019
|b American Assoc. of Neurological Surgeons
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1580742899_4996
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a 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.
536 _ _ |a 572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572
|c POF3-572
|f POF III
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef
700 1 _ |a Kalyvas, Aristotelis
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Grau, Stefan
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Hamisch, Christina
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Galldiks, Norbert
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)143792
|b 4
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Katsigiannis, Sotirios
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Kabbasch, Christoph
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Timmer, Marco
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Goldbrunner, Roland
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 8
700 1 _ |a Stranjalis, George
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 9
773 _ _ |a 10.3171/2018.7.JNS18228
|g Vol. 131, no. 4, p. 1136 - 1141
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2026156-1
|n 4
|p 1136 - 1141
|t Journal of neurosurgery
|v 131
|y 2019
|x 1933-0693
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/873534/files/Stavrinou_2019_J%20Neurosurg_Survival%20effects%20of%20a%20strategy%20favoring%20second-line%20multimodal%20treatment.pdf
|y Restricted
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/873534/files/Stavrinou_2019_J%20Neurosurg_Survival%20effects%20of%20a%20strategy%20favoring%20second-line%20multimodal%20treatment.pdf?subformat=pdfa
|x pdfa
|y Restricted
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:873534
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)143792
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Key Technologies
|l Decoding the Human Brain
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-570
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-500
|v (Dys-)function and Plasticity
|x 0
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
914 1 _ |y 2019
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b J NEUROSURG-SPINE : 2017
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0310
|2 StatID
|b NCBI Molecular Biology Database
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0110
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0111
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1110
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Clinical Medicine
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1030
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Life Sciences
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
920 _ _ |l yes
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406
|k INM-3
|l Kognitive Neurowissenschaften
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21