Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 49(1); 2017 > Article
Original Article Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy with Temozolomide Followed by Adjuvant Temozolomide for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Observation Study in Korea
Byung Sup Kim, MD1, Ho Jun Seol, MD, PhD2, Do-Hyun Nam, MD, PhD2, Chul-Kee Park, MD, PhD3, Il Han Kim, MD, PhD4, Tae Min Kim, MD, PhD5, Jeong Hoon Kim, MD, PhD6, Young Hyun Cho, MD, PhD6, Sang Min Yoon, MD, PhD7, Jong Hee Chang, MD, PhD8, Seok-Gu Kang, MD, PhD8, Eui Hyun Kim, MD8, Chang-Ok Suh, MD, PhD9, Tae-Young Jung, MD, PhD10, Kyung-Hwa Lee, MD, PhD11, Chae-Yong Kim, MD, PhD12, In Ah Kim, MD, PhD13, Chang-Ki Hong, MD14, Heon Yoo, MD, PhD15, Jin Hee Kim, MD, PhD16, Shin-Hyuk Kang, MD, PhD17, Min Kyu Kang, MD18, Eun-Young Kim, MD19, Sun-Hwan Kim, MD20, Dong-Sup Chung, MD, PhD21, Sun-Chul Hwang, MD22, Joon-Ho Song, MD23, Sung Jin Cho, MD, PhD24, Sun-Il Lee, MD, PhD25, Youn-Soo Lee, MD, PhD26, Kook-Jin Ahn, MD, PhD27, Se Hoon Kim, MD, PhD28, Do Hun Lim, MD, PhD29, Ho-Shin Gwak, MD, PhD30,, Se-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD31,, Yong-Kil Hong, MD, PhD32
Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2017;49(1):193-203.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2015.473
Published online: June 27, 2016

1Department of Neurosurgery, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea

2Department of Neurosurgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

3Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

4Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

5Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

6Department of Neurosurgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

7Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

8Department of Neurosurgery, Brain Tumor Center, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea

9Department of Radiation Oncology, Brain Tumor Center, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea

10Department of Neurosurgery, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea

11Department of Pathology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea

12Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea

13Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea

14Department of Neurosurgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Health Science, Seoul, Korea

15Department of Neuro-Oncology Clinic, Center for Specific Organs Cancer, National Cancer Center Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

16Department of Radiation Oncology, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

17Department of Neurosurgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

18Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University Medical Center, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

19Department of Neurosurgery, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

20Department of Neurosurgery, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

21Department of Neurosurgery, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Korea

22Department of Neurosurgery, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Bucheon, Korea

23Department of Neurosurgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea

24Department of Neurosurgery, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

25Department of Neurosurgery, Inje University Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea

26Department of Pathology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

27Department of Radiation, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

28Department of Pathology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

29Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

30Department of Systemic Cancer Science, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

31Division of Hematotology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

32Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Se-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD  Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea 
Tel: 82-2-3410-1132 Fax: 82-2-3410-1757 E-mail: sehoon.lee119@gmail.com
Co-Correspondence: Ho-Shin Gwak, MD, PhD  Department of Systemic Cancer Science, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang, 10408, Korea 
Tel: 82-31-920-1666 Fax: 82-31-920-2798 E-mail: nsghs@ncc.re.kr
*Byung Sup Kim, Ho Jun Seol, and Do-Hyun Nam contributed equally to this work.
• Received: December 8, 2015   • Accepted: June 6, 2016

Copyright © 2017 by the Korean Cancer Association

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 16,232 Views
  • 314 Download
  • 24 Web of Science
  • 27 Crossref
  • 24 Scopus
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Purpose
    The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and survival benefits of combined treatment with radiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) in a Korean sample.
  • Materials and Methods
    A total of 750 Korean patients with histologically confirmed glioblastoma multiforme, who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy with TMZ (CCRT) and adjuvant TMZ from January 2006 until June 2011, were analyzed retrospectively.
  • Results
    After the first operation, a gross total resection (GTR), subtotal resection (STR), partial resection (PR), biopsy alone were achieved in 388 (51.7%), 159 (21.2%), 96 (12.8%), and 107 (14.3%) patients, respectively. The methylation status of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) was reviewed retrospectively in 217 patients. The median follow-up period was 16.3 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 17.5 months. The actuarial survival rates at the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS were 72.1%, 21.0%, and 9.0%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.1 months, and the actuarial PFS at 1-, 3-, and 5-year PFS were 42.2%, 13.0%, and 7.8%, respectively. The patients who received GTR showed a significantly longer OS and PFS than those who received STR, PR, or biopsy alone, regardless of the methylation status of the MGMT promoter. Patients with a methylated MGMT promoter also showed a significantly longer OS and PFS than those with an unmethylated MGMT promoter. Patients who received more than six cycles of adjuvant TMZ had a longer OS and PFS than those who received six or fewer cycles. Hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or 4 was observed in 8.4% of patients during the CCRT period and in 10.2% during the adjuvant TMZ period.
  • Conclusion
    Patients treated with CCRT followed by adjuvant TMZ had more favorable survival rates and tolerable toxicity than those who did not undergo this treatment.
  • Key words: Glioblastoma, Temozolomide, MGMT, Chemoradiotherapy
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common malignant type of primary brain tumor, comprising approximately 52% of all primary brain tumors [1]. Despite the use of a multidisciplinary treatment approach, the prognosis of GBM is extremely poor; most patients die within 2 years after the initial diagnosis [2-4]. Currently, the standard treatment for newly diagnosed GBM consists of a surgical resection to the extent feasible, followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide (CCRT) and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). In 2004, a randomized phase III multicenter trial reported that CCRT followed by adjuvant TMZ improved the median survival and 2-year survival over postoperative radiotherapy (RT) alone [5]. Based on these results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the concomitant use of TMZ with RT for newly diagnosed GBM patients. Through a follow-up study longer than 5 years, Stupp et al. [6] reported that CCRT followed by adjuvant TMZ improved the long-term survival compared to RT alone, and that methylation of the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter was correlated with a better overall survival (OS). Recently, Yang et al. [7] reported a variance in the correlations between MGMT promoter methylation and both the OS and progression-free survival (PFS) among an ethnically-diverse sample of GBM patients. In their meta-analysis, they found that subjects of European descent had a better OS and PFS in GBM with the MGMT promoter methylation compared to different race according to univariate or multivariate analysis, whereas subjects of East Asian descent had a longer OS compared to difference race according to multivariate analysis only. Only a few studies of OS and PFS among Korean GBM patients that account for MGMT promoter methylation have been reported. In particular, there are no large case studies of Korean GBM patients examining the efficacy and safety of CCRT followed by adjuvant TMZ.
This study assessed the efficacy and safety of CCRT followed by adjuvant TMZ for patients with a newly diagnosed GBM through a multicenter, retrospective study of a large case series for the first time in Korea.
1. Patient sample
Patients older than 20 years with a newly diagnosed GBM were assessed through retrospective chart reviews. All patients were confirmed histologically with GBM. Nineteen institutions participated in the study, and chart reviews for the clinical and radiological findings were performed independently and analyzed at each institution. The institutional review boards of all participating centers approved the study. A central pathologic review of histopathological specimens from all patients included in the study was performed by three neuropathologists (K.-H.L., Y.-S.L., and S.H.K.).
2. Treatment protocols
All patients were treated with CCRT with or without adjuvant TMZ according to Stupp’s regimens [5]. The maximal surgical resection of tumors was performed within the feasible limits. The extent of the resection was classified as a gross total resection (GTR), subtotal resection (STR), partial resection (PR), or biopsy alone. Patients received CCRT within 6 weeks after the pathological confirmation of GBM where possible. The patients were irradiated with a total dose of 60 Gy, with daily fractions of 2 Gy given 5 days per week for 6 weeks, using conventional three-dimensional conformal RT. Alternative RT protocols, such as two-dimensional RT and intensity-modulated RT with or without a simultaneous-integrated boost were included to avoid any selection bias and reflect regular clinical situations. TMZ was administered at 75 mg/m2 every day for 6 weeks during the RT period. After a 4-week break, the patients received adjuvant TMZ for the first 5 days of each 28-day cycle provided that they continued to tolerate the treatment. The dose of adjuvant TMZ was 150 mg/m2/day for the first cycle, which was increased to 200 mg/m2/day at the beginning of the second cycle if no hematologic toxicity had occurred.
3. Follow-up and evaluations
The extent of the resection was evaluated by postoperative brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gadolinium enhancement within 48 hours after surgery. The GTR was defined as > 99% removal of the initial tumor, STR as 50%-99%, and the PR as < 50%. The MRI scans were performed before the first cycle and after every two or three cycles of adjuvant TMZ. The assessments of the radiologic outcomes were defined according to the RANO criteria [8]. The primary end-point was the OS, and the secondary end-points were PFS and safety. The PFS was defined as the time from the date of the initial operation to documented disease progression or the date of the final follow-up visit. The OS time was measured from the date of the initial operation to death or the date of the final follow-up visit. Patients who were alive at the time of analysis were included as censored observations. The methylation status of the MGMT promoter was evaluated using a methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction where possible. The toxic effects of the treatment were graded as follows according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) ver. 4.0.3: a score of 1, indicating mild adverse effects; 2, indicating moderate adverse effects; 3, indicating severe adverse effects; 4, indicating life-threatening adverse effects; and 5, denoting death related to adverse effects.
4. Statistical analysis
The prognostic factors associated with survival, including the age at diagnosis, sex, preoperative Karnofsky performance status (KPS), tumor location, extent of resection, use of adjuvant TMZ, and methylation status of the MGMT promoter, were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses. The OS and PFS were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with two-sided log-rank tests. Differences were considered statistically significant at p-value < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS ver. 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
1. Patient characteristics
A total of 750 patients from 19 institutions were enrolled and treated according to Stupp’s protocol from January 2006 until June 2011. Of these patients, 415 (55.3%) were male and 335 (44.7%) were female; the median age at the first operation was 57.5 years (range, 20 to 86 years). Three hundred eightyseven patients (51.7%) showed a KPS score ≥ 90 at diagnosis. Supratentorial lesions were observed in 719 patients (95.9%) and infratentorial lesions were noted in 31 patients (4.1%). Among the supratentorial lesions, deep-seated GBMs were found in 106 patients (4.7%) and superficial GBMs were found in 613 patients (85.3%). At the first operation, GTR, STR, PR, and biopsy alone were achieved in 388 (51.7%), 159 (21.2%), 96 (12.8%), and 107 (14.3%) patients, respectively. A central pathological review confirmed the diagnosis of GBM in all cases reviewed. The median time from diagnosis to the start of RT was 3.6 weeks (range, 0.7 to 26.6 weeks). The median therapeutic radiation dose was 60 Gy (range, 4 to 84 Gy). Among the 750 patients assigned to receive CCRT, 659 (87.9%) completed CCRT as planned. After CCRT, 660 patients (88%) started adjuvant TMZ and received a median of six cycles (range, 0 to 15 cycles); 407 patients (61.7%) completed six cycles. The reasons for not starting or not completing adjuvant TMZ therapy were disease progression (32.6%), toxic effects (3.5%), and follow-up loss (2.3%). The median KPS in those patients who completed and did not complete adjuvant TMZ was 90 (range, 20 to 100) and 80 (30 to 100), respectively. The methylation status of the MGMT promoter was evaluated in 217 of the 750 patients (28.9%). Of the 217 patients, 89 (41.0%) had the methylated MGMT promoter, and 128 (59.0%) had the unmethylated MGMT promoter.
2. Survival outcome and progression
At the time of the analysis, 690 patients (92.0%) had died. The median follow-up period was 16.3 months (range, 0.3 to 105.1 months), and the median OS was 17.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5 to 18.5). The actuarial survival rates at 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS were 72.1%, 21.0%, and 9.0%, respectively. The median PFS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.3 to 10.9), and the actuarial PFS at 1-, 3-, and 5-year PFS was 42.2%, 13.0%, and 7.8%, respectively. In univariate analysis for survival in all patients, the age at diagnosis (p < 0.001), preoperative KPS (p < 0.001), tumor location (p < 0.001), extent of resection (p < 0.001), use of adjuvant TMZ (p < 0.001), and methylation status of the MGMT promoter (p=0.012) were correlated with survival. The age at diagnosis (p=0.003), extent of the resection (p < 0.001), and use of adjuvant TMZ (p < 0.001) were correlated with the survival in both univariate and multivariate analyses. In addition, the methylation status of the MGMT promoter (p=0.083) was not correlated with survival in multivariate analysis. Patients who had received GTR showed a significantly longer OS (21.0 months vs. 15.8 months, p=0.001) (Fig. 1A) and longer PFS (10.9 months vs. 9.1 months, p=0.001) (Fig. 1B) than those who had received STR, PR, or biopsy alone in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Patients with the methylated MGMT promoter had a longer OS (23.9 months vs. 16.7 months, p=0.012) (Fig. 2A) and longer PFS (13.2 months vs. 9.3 months, p=0.006) (Fig. 2B) than those with the unmethylated MGMT promoter. When analyzing the extent of the resection according to the methylation status of the MGMT, patients receiving GTR showed a significantly longer OS than those receiving STR, PR, or biopsy alone in the groups with both the methylated (28.6 months vs. 16.7 months, p=0.001) (Fig. 3A) and unmethylated MGMT promoter (19.0 months vs. 14.8 months, p=0.001) (Fig. 3C). As with OS, a significantly higher PFS was observed in patients receiving GTR compared to those receiving STR, PR, or biopsy alone in both groups with the methylated (20.7 months vs. 11.1 months, p=0.041) (Fig. 3B) and unmethylated MGMT promoter (10.6 months vs. 7.2 months, p=0.030) (Fig. 3D). The use of adjuvant TMZ was associated with survival according to both univariate and multivariate analyses. The OS and PFS were compared in patients with the methylated and unmethylated MGMT promoter, considering the degree of completeness of adjuvant TMZ (Table 1). Patients with the methylated MGMT promoter had a longer OS and longer PFS as the number of adjuvant TMZ cycles approached six compared to those who had the unmethylated MGMT promoter (Fig. 4).
3. Treatment-related hematologic toxicity
The incidence and degree of hematologic toxicity were analyzed separately according to the period of CCRT and adjuvant TMZ. A total of 115 patients (15.3%) showed grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity, as evaluated by CTCAE ver. 4.0.3 during the CCRT and the adjuvant TMZ period. During the CCRT period, grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity was noted in 63 patients (8.4%), including 41 patients (5.5%) with lymphocytopenia, 10 patients (1.3%) with neutropenia, eight patients (1.1%) with thrombocytopenia, seven patients (0.9%) with leukopenia, and five patients (0.7%) with anemia. During the adjuvant TMZ period, grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity was reported in 66 patients (10.2%), including 42 patients (6.4%) with lymphocytopenia, 17 patients (2.6%) with neutropenia, 13 patients (2.0%) with thrombocytopenia, five patients (0.8%) with anemia, and two patients (0.3%) with leukopenia.
In previous studies, age, performance status, extent of resection, methylation status of the MGMT promoter, and the use of TMZ were identified as prognostic factors for patients with GBM [6,9,10]. In the present study, age, extent of the resection, and use of adjuvant TMZ were correlated with a better OS according to univariate and multivariate analyses, whereas the tumor location and methylation status of the MGMT promoter were prognostic factors of OS in univariate analysis alone. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies. Table 2 summarizes the results of Stupp’s trial and other studies in East Asian samples.
In 2004, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) trial (Stupp’s trial) demonstrated a median OS and PFS of 14.6 and 6.9 months in patients with newly diagnosed and histologically proven GBM, respectively. In the present study, the median OS and PFS were 17.5 and 10.1 months, respectively. Although the treatment in the present study was based on Stupp’s protocol, better clinical outcomes were observed than those of Stupp’s trial. Several differences were observed between the studies, which could explain the improved survival. One possible explanation was the superior GTR rate. The number of TMZ-treated patients who received GTR was larger than that in Stupp’s tria (51.7% vs. 39%). The literature indicates that GTR is a significant prognostic factor in patients with a primary GBM [11-15]. In the current series, patients who received GTR showed a longer OS and longer PFS than those who received STR, PR, or biopsy alone, regardless of the methylation status of the MGMT promoter. Selection bias may also have occurred due to the differences between a prospective randomized study (Stupp’s trial) and a retrospective multiinstitutional study (the present study).
The methylation status of the MGMT promoter is a suggested predictive factor of the survival of patients with newly diagnosed GBM treated with RT and TMZ [6,16,17]. The epigenetic silencing of the MGMT gene by methylation of the MGMT promoter leads to a loss of MGMT expression and a decrease in DNA repair activity, resulting in increased sensitivity to TMZ and a longer OS [5]. On the other hand, whether methylation of the MGMT promoter is truly a prognostic marker or a predictive marker of the sensitivity to alkylating agents or radiation is unclear [18-20]. In the current study, the MGMT methylation status was a prognostic factor of survival in univariate analysis alone. Patients with a methylated MGMT promoter and underwent Stupp’s protocol showed significantly a longer OS and longer PFS than those with the unmethylated MGMT promoter. These results are consistent with those of a previous study [18]. Among the 573 patients enrolled in Stupp’s trial, Hegi et al. [18] analyzed the MGMT methylation status in 206 patients for whom the MGMT status could be evaluated. In 106 patients who received CCRT, patients with methylated MGMT promoter (43.4%) showed a significantly longer OS and longer PFS than those with the unmethylated MGMT promoter (56.6%) (OS, 21.7 months vs. 12.7 months; PFS, 10.3 months vs. 5.3 months). These results also imply that a methylated MGMT promoter is predictive of a response to RT and is a prognostic factor in GBM.
The differences in survival between the present and previous studies could also be explained by the early start of postoperative RT and the number of adjuvant TMZ cycles administered. The median cellular doubling time of GBM is 17 days. As the tumor grows and produces satellite growths, the chance of a regional miss increases during radiation treatment [21]. Consequently, any delays in time from surgery to the start of RT are correlated with a poor survival [22]. The median time from surgery to the start of RT was 5 weeks in Stupp’s trial, whereas postoperative RT was started within a median time of 3.5 weeks in the present study. A disparity in the degree of completion of adjuvant TMZ was observed between the groups. Although adjuvant TMZ was administered for a maximum of six cycles in Stupp’s trial, in the present study, adjuvant TMZ was continued provided that it was tolerated (median cycle, 3 cycles vs. 6 cycles, respectively). The number of patients completing six cycles of adjuvant TMZ was also greater in the present study than in Stupp’s trial (61.7% vs. 47%). Seiz et al. [23] compared the OS and PFS in patients who received six cycles or fewer and more than six cycles of adjuvant TMZ. Among a total of 114 patients treated with Stupp’s protocol, 55 received adjuvant TMZ of six cycles or less, and 59 received more than six cycles. Correlations were observed between the degree of completion of adjuvant TMZ and both OS and PFS [23]. In the present study, the administration of adjuvant TMZ after CCRT was the strongest prognostic factor of survival, and the degree of completion of adjuvant TMZ was correlated with the OS and PFS regardless of the methylation status of the MGMT promoter. These results suggest that adjuvant TMZ is crucial for prolonging the OS and PFS in Korean patients with a newly diagnosed GBM.
Finally, the incidence of hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or 4 during the CCRT period was slightly greater in the present study than in Stupp’s trial (8.4% vs. 6.7%). In contrast to the CCRT period, the incidence of hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or 4 during the adjuvant TMZ period was lower in the present study than in Stupp’s trial (10.2% vs. 14.3%). Hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or 4 was considered tolerable compared to other studies [5,10,24,25].
Patients treated with CCRT followed by adjuvant TMZ had more favorable survival rates and tolerable toxicity. On the other hand, the present study has limitations because of its retrospective nature, the study range was restricted to adult GBM, and the use of a different treatment protocol from that already recognized as the standard for newly diagnosed GBM. Nevertheless, this study is the first large, multicenter, observational study of GBM treatment in a sample of Korean patients. A randomized, prospective study of a large case series will be needed explore ways of improving the survival among Korean GBM patients.

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Fig. 1.
Kaplan-Meier curves showing overall survival (OS) (A) and progression-free survival (PFS) (B) according to the extent of the resection. Patients who received gross total resection (GTR) showed a significantly longer OS (21.0 months vs. 15.8 months) and PFS (10.9 months vs. 9.1 months) than those who received subtotal resection (STR), partial resection (PR), or biopsy (Bx) alone.
crt-2015-473f1.gif
Fig. 2.
Kaplan-Meier curves showing overall survival (OS) (A) and progression-free survival (PFS) (B) according to the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status. Patients with the methylated MGMT promoter had a longer OS (23.9 months vs. 16.7 months) and longer PFS (13.2 months vs. 9.3 months) than those with the unmethylated MGMT promoter.
crt-2015-473f2.gif
Fig. 3.
Kaplan-Meier curves showing overall survival (OS) (A) and progression-free survival (PFS) (B) according to the extent of the resection in patients with the methylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter. Kaplan-Meier curves showing OS (C) and PFS (D) according to the extent of resection in patients with unmethylated MGMT promoter. Patients receiving gross total resection (GTR) demonstrated a significantly longer OS than those receiving subtotal resection (STR), partial resection (PR), or biopsy (Bx) alone in both groups with methylated (28.6 months vs. 16.7 months) and unmethylated MGMT promoter (19.0 months vs. 14.8 months). For OS, patients receiving GTR demonstrated a significantly longer PFS than those receiving STR, PR, or Bx alone in both groups with methylated (20.7 months vs. 11.1 months) and unmethylated MGMT promoter (10.6 months vs. 7.2 months).
crt-2015-473f3.gif
Fig. 4.
Kaplan-Meier curves showing overall survival (OS) (A) and progression-free survival (PFS) (B) according to the completion of six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with the methylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter. Kaplan-Meier curves showing OS (C) and PFS (D) according to completion of six cycles of adjuvant TMZ in patients with the unmethylated MGMT promoter. Patients with the methylated MGMT promoter had a longer OS and longer PFS as the number of adjuvant TMZ cycles approached six compared to those with the unmethylated MGMT promoter.
crt-2015-473f4.gif
Table 1.
Differences in OS and PFS according to the completeness of adjuvant TMZ treatment
Variable Total patients (n=750)
 Methylated (n=89)
 Unmethylated (n=128)
OS PFS OS PFS OS PFS
p-value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
TMZ < 3 cycles n=93 n=9 n=17
 Median (mo) 10.2±1.0 5.3±0.2 10.1+5.5 4.6±1.1 9.5±1.1 5.4±0.9
 95% Cl (mo) 8.3-12.1 4.9-5.7 0-20.9 2.5-6.7 7.3-11.7 3.6-72
TMZ ≥ 3 cycles n=160 n=20 n=30
 Median (mo) 13.9±0.6 6.7±0.2 16.1±0.9 8.0±1.9 14.2±0.7 62±1.0
 95% Cl (mo) 12.8-15.0 62-7.2 14.3-17.9 4.3-11.7 12.9-15.5 4.2-82
Patients who completed 6 cycles of adjuvant TMZ n=407 n=55 n=67
 Median (mo) 25.7±1.1 14.7±0.7 29.6±2.9 19.2±3.2 22.2±3.2 12.1±0.8
 95% Cl (mo) 23.6-27.8 13.3-16.1 23.9-35.3 13.0-25.4 16.0-28.4 10.6-13.6
Patients who did not receive adjuvant TMZ n=90 n=5 n=14
 Median (mo) 6.5±0.9 3.8±0.2 5.8±0.9 4.2 4.9±2.2 3.8±0.4
 95% Cl (mo) 4.6-8.4 3.4-4.2 4.1-7.5 - 0.7-9.1 3.0-4.6

Kaplan-Meier and log rank tests. OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TMZ, temozolomide; CI, confidence interval.

Table 2.
Patient characteristics, OS, and PFS in multiple studies
Characteristics Stupp et al. (2005) [5,18] Oike et al. (2013) [10] Park et al. (2013) [25] Joo et al. (2012) [24] Present study
Patients enrolled 287 45 50 103 750
Age (yr) 56 (19-70) 60 (5-79) 49 (28-70) 57 (18-77) 57.5 (20-86)
Extent of resection
 GTR 113 (39) 7 (15.6) 20 (40) 57 (55) 388 (51.7)
 STR 126 (44) 34 (75.6) 30 (60) 18 (18) 159 (21.2)
 PR 6 (6) 96 (12.8)
 Biopsy 48 (17) 4 (8.8) 12 (12) 22 (21) 107(14.3)
Status of MGMT promoter
 Methylated 46 (43.4) 21 (47.7) 14 (28) 14 (47) 89 (41.0)
 Unmethylated 60 (56.6) 23 (52.3) 36 (72) 16 (53) 128 (59.0)
 Not assessed 181 1 - 73 533
Six cycles of adjuvant TMZ completed after CCRT 105 (47) - 26 (52) 54 (52) 407 (61.7)
Cycles of adjuvant TMZ 3 (0-7) 7 (0-54) - 6 (1-15) 6 (0-15)
Dose of RT (BED, Gy) 60 (12-62) 72 (65-72) 60 59.4 (0.8-70.0) 60 (4.0-84.0)
OS (95% Cl, mo) 14.6 (13.2-16.8) 15.8 (12.3-19.3) 23.0 (16.7-29.3) 18.0 (14.8-21.2) 17.5 (16.5-18.5)
 1-Yr OS (%) 61.1 71.1 - 73.7 72.1
 2-Yr OS (%) 26.5 27.7 - 38.0 36.0
 3-Yr OS (%) - 21.6 - - 21.0
PFS (95% Cl, mo) 6.9 (5.8-8.2) - 9.0 (5.5-12.5) 10.0 (8.8-11.2) 10.1 (9.3-10.9)
Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity 19 (7) 9 (20.4) 1 (2) 8 (8.1) 115 (15.3)

Values are presented as number (%) or median (range) unless otherwise indicated. OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; GTR, gross total resection; STR, subtotal resection; PR, partial resection; MGMT, O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase; TMZ, temozolomide; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy with TMZ; RT, radiotherapy; BED, biologically effective dose; CI, confidence interval.

  • 1. Suzuki Y, Shirai K, Oka K, Mobaraki A, Yoshida Y, Noda SE, et al. Higher pAkt expression predicts a significant worse prognosis in glioblastomas. J Radiat Res. 2010;51:343–8. ArticlePubMed
  • 2. DeAngelis LM. Brain tumors. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:114–23. ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Buckner JC. Factors influencing survival in high-grade gliomas. Semin Oncol. 2003;30(6 Suppl 19):10–4. Article
  • 4. Curran WJ Jr, Scott CB, Horton J, Nelson JS, Weinstein AS, Fischbach AJ, et al. Recursive partitioning analysis of prognostic factors in three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group malignant glioma trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:704–10. ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJ, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:987–96. ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Taphoorn MJ, Janzer RC, et al. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:459–66. ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Yang H, Wei D, Yang K, Tang W, Luo Y, Zhang J. The prognosis of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma patients of different race: a meta-analysis. Neurochem Res. 2014;39:2277–87. ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen AG, Galanis E, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neurooncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1963–72. ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Prados MD. Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis. Neuro Oncol. 2004;6:227–35. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Oike T, Suzuki Y, Sugawara K, Shirai K, Noda SE, Tamaki T, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma: Japanese mono-institutional results. PLoS One. 2013;8:e78943ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 11. Senft C, Bink A, Franz K, Vatter H, Gasser T, Seifert V. Intraoperative MRI guidance and extent of resection in glioma surgery: a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:997–1003. ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Stummer W, Reulen HJ, Meinel T, Pichlmeier U, Schumacher W, Tonn JC, et al. Extent of resection and survival in glioblastoma multiforme: identification of and adjustment for bias. Neurosurgery. 2008;62:564–76. ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Lacroix M, Abi-Said D, Fourney DR, Gokaslan ZL, Shi W, DeMonte F, et al. A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. J Neurosurg. 2001;95:190–8. Article
  • 14. Laws ER, Parney IF, Huang W, Anderson F, Morris AM, Asher A, et al. Survival following surgery and prognostic factors for recently diagnosed malignant glioma: data from the Glioma Outcomes Project. J Neurosurg. 2003;99:467–73. ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Kreth FW, Thon N, Simon M, Westphal M, Schackert G, Nikkhah G, et al. Gross total but not incomplete resection of glioblastoma prolongs survival in the era of radiochemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:3117–23. ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Esteller M, Hamilton SR, Burger PC, Baylin SB, Herman JG. Inactivation of the DNA repair gene O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase by promoter hypermethylation is a common event in primary human neoplasia. Cancer Res. 1999;59:793–7. PubMed
  • 17. Esteller M, Garcia-Foncillas J, Andion E, Goodman SN, Hidalgo OF, Vanaclocha V, et al. Inactivation of the DNArepair gene MGMT and the clinical response of gliomas to alkylating agents. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1350–4. ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, Hamou MF, de Tribolet N, Weller M, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:997–1003. ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Rivera AL, Pelloski CE, Gilbert MR, Colman H, De La Cruz C, Sulman EP, et al. MGMT promoter methylation is predictive of response to radiotherapy and prognostic in the absence of adjuvant alkylating chemotherapy for glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2010;12:116–21. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 20. Criniere E, Kaloshi G, Laigle-Donadey F, Lejeune J, Auger N, Benouaich-Amiel A, et al. MGMT prognostic impact on glioblastoma is dependent on therapeutic modalities. J Neurooncol. 2007;83:173–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Lawrence YR, Blumenthal DT, Matceyevsky D, Kanner AA, Bokstein F, Corn BW. Delayed initiation of radiotherapy for glioblastoma: how important is it to push to the front (or the back) of the line? J Neurooncol. 2011;105:1–7. ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Irwin C, Hunn M, Purdie G, Hamilton D. Delay in radiotherapy shortens survival in patients with high grade glioma. J Neurooncol. 2007;85:339–43. ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Seiz M, Krafft U, Freyschlag CF, Weiss C, Schmieder K, Lohr F, et al. Long-term adjuvant administration of temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma multiforme: experience of a single institution. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136:1691–5. ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Joo JD, Chang JH, Kim JH, Hong YK, Kim YH, Kim CY. Temozolomide during and after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastomas: a prospective multicenter study of Korean patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012;52:92–7. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 25. Park CK, Lee SH, Kim TM, Choi SH, Park SH, Heo DS, et al. The value of temozolomide in combination with radiotherapy during standard treatment for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2013;112:277–83. ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Efficacy and safety of carmustine wafers, followed by radiation, temozolomide, and bevacizumab therapy, for newly diagnosed glioblastoma with maximal resection
      Masayuki Kanamori, Ichiyo Shibahara, Yoshiteru Shimoda, Yukinori Akiyama, Takaaki Beppu, Shigeo Ohba, Toshiyuki Enomoto, Takahiro Ono, Yuta Mitobe, Mitsuto Hanihara, Yohei Mineharu, Joji Ishida, Kenichiro Asano, Yasuyuki Yoshida, Manabu Natsumeda, Sadahir
      International Journal of Clinical Oncology.2025; 30(1): 51.     CrossRef
    • Letter to the Editor Regarding Cerebral Blood Flow Role in Delineating Treatment Effect from True Tumor Progression in Glioblastoma Multiforme
      Inibehe Ime Okon, Tolulope Judah Gbayisomore, Samuel Berchi Kankam, Mohammad Jalloh
      World Neurosurgery.2024; 186: 269.     CrossRef
    • NTRK-fused central nervous system tumours: clinicopathological and genetic insights and response to TRK inhibitors
      Eric Eunshik Kim, Chul-Kee Park, Seung-Ki Kim, Ji Hoon Phi, Sun Ha Paek, Jung Yoon Choi, Hyoung Jin Kang, Joo Ho Lee, Jae Kyung Won, Hongseok Yun, Sung-Hye Park
      Acta Neuropathologica Communications.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • The Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO) Guideline for the Management of Brain Tumor Patients During the Crisis Period: A Consensus Recommendation Using the Delphi Method (Version 2023.1)
      Min-Sung Kim, Se-Il Go, Chan Woo Wee, Min Ho Lee, Seok-Gu Kang, Kyeong-O Go, Sae Min Kwon, Woohyun Kim, Yun-Sik Dho, Sung-Hye Park, Youngbeom Seo, Sang Woo Song, Stephen Ahn, Hyuk-Jin Oh, Hong In Yoon, Sea-Won Lee, Joo Ho Lee, Kyung Rae Cho, Jung Won Choi
      Brain Tumor Research and Treatment.2023; 11(2): 123.     CrossRef
    • Lymphoproliferative disorder during temozolomide therapy; a representative case of a formidable complication and management challenges
      Daisuke Sato, Hirokazu Takami, Shunsaku Takayanagi, Kazuki Taoka, Mariko Tanaka, Reiko Matsuura, Shota Tanaka, Nobuhito Saito
      BMC Neurology.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Glioma angiogenesis is boosted by ELK3 activating the HIF-1$$alpha$$/VEGF-A signaling axis
      Mou Yueyang, Hu Yaqin, Xue Guolian, Zhao Wenjian, Jiao Yang, Li Chen, Cao Haiyan, Chao Min, Deng Jianping, Dai Penggao, Zhu Hongli, Wang Liang
      BMC Cancer.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Levetiracetam as a sensitizer of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: An open‐label phase 2 study
      Kihwan Hwang, Junhyung Kim, Seok‐Gu Kang, Tae‐Young Jung, Jeong Hoon Kim, Se‐Hyuk Kim, Shin‐Hyuk Kang, Yong‐Kil Hong, Tae Min Kim, Yu Jung Kim, Byung Se Choi, Jong Hee Chang, Chae‐Yong Kim
      Cancer Medicine.2022; 11(2): 371.     CrossRef
    • Prognostic Value and Risk Factors of Treatment-Related Lymphopenia in Malignant Glioma Patients Treated With Chemoradiotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
      Yongchao Zhang, Shichao Chen, Hualei Chen, Shanshan Chen, Zhen Li, Enshan Feng, Wei Li
      Frontiers in Neurology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • PrACTiC: A Predictive Algorithm for Chemoradiotherapy-Induced Cytopenia in Glioblastoma Patients
      Alireza Amouheidari, Zahra Alirezaei, Stefan Rauh, Masoud Hassanpour, Ozkan Kanat
      Journal of Oncology.2022; 2022: 1.     CrossRef
    • Relapsing High—Grade Glioma from Peritumoral Zone: Critical Review of Radiotherapy Treatment Options
      Maria Chiara Lo Greco, Roberto Milazzotto, Rocco Luca Emanuele Liardo, Grazia Acquaviva, Madalina La Rocca, Roberto Altieri, Francesco Certo, Giuseppe Maria Barbagallo, Antonio Basile, Pietro Valerio Foti, Stefano Palmucci, Stefano Pergolizzi, Antonio Pon
      Brain Sciences.2022; 12(4): 416.     CrossRef
    • Effect of Choline Alphoscerate on the Survival of Glioblastoma Patients: A Retrospective, Single-Center Study
      Yeong Jin Kim, Tae-Kyu Lee, Myung-Giun Noh, Tae-Young Jung, In-Young Kim, Shin Jung, Kyung-Hwa Lee, Kyung-Sub Moon
      Journal of Clinical Medicine.2022; 11(20): 6052.     CrossRef
    • Evaluating survival in subjects with astrocytic brain tumors by dynamic susceptibility-weighted perfusion MR imaging
      Matthew L. White, Yan Zhang, Syed A. Jaffar Kazmi, Michele Aizenberg, Nicole Shonka, Fang Yu, Adams Kusi Appiah, Michael C. Burger
      PLOS ONE.2021; 16(1): e0244275.     CrossRef
    • Prognostic value of test(s) for O6-methylguanine–DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation for predicting overall survival in people with glioblastoma treated with temozolomide
      Alexandra McAleenan, Claire Kelly, Francesca Spiga, Ashleigh Kernohan, Hung-Yuan Cheng, Sarah Dawson, Lena Schmidt, Tomos Robinson, Sebastian Brandner, Claire L Faulkner, Christopher Wragg, Sarah Jefferies, Amy Howell, Luke Vale, Julian P T Higgins, Kathr
      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Mixed malignant glioblastoma and schwannoma in spinal cord with metachronous ependymoma: A case report
      Mostafa Farzin, Mohamadreza Hajiabadi, Mohammad Rahmani, Kasra Kolahdouzan
      Clinical Case Reports.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: a retrospective cohort study
      Srinivas Annavarapu, Anagha Gogate, Trang Pham, Kalatu Davies, Prianka Singh, Nicholas Robert
      CNS Oncology.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Number of Adjuvant Temozolomide Cycles in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma
      Fahimeh Attarian, Farzad Taghizadeh-Hesary, Azar Fanipakdel, Seyed Alireza Javadinia, Pejman Porouhan, Babak PeyroShabany, Danial Fazilat-Panah
      Frontiers in Oncology.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Tumor treating fields plus temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a sub-group analysis of Korean patients in the EF-14 phase 3 trial
      Chae-Yong Kim, Sun Ha Paek, Do-hyun Nam, Jong-Hee Chang, Yong-Kil Hong, Jeong Hoon Kim, Oh Lyong Kim, Se-Hyuk Kim
      Journal of Neuro-Oncology.2020; 146(3): 399.     CrossRef
    • Risk Factors for Cognitive Impairment in High-Grade Glioma Patients Treated with Postoperative Radiochemotherapy
      Qiang Wang, Fengxia Xiao, Fei Qi, Xiaopeng Song, Yonghua Yu
      Cancer Research and Treatment.2020; 52(2): 586.     CrossRef
    • Immunotherapy for gliomas: shedding light on progress in preclinical and clinical development
      Maria B. Garcia-Fabiani, Maria Ventosa, Andrea Comba, Marianela Candolfi, Alejandro J. Nicola Candia, Mahmoud S. Alghamri, Padma Kadiyala, Stephen Carney, Syed M. Faisal, Anna Schwendeman, James J. Moon, Lindsay Scheetz, Joerg Lahann, Ava Mauser, Pedro R.
      Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs.2020; 29(7): 659.     CrossRef

    • Long Intergenic Non-Protein Coding RNA 1094 Promotes Initiation and Progression of Glioblastoma by Promoting microRNA-577-Regulated Stabilization of Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor


      Xiaoyan Dong, Xiuxin Fu, Miao Yu, Zengfen Li
      Cancer Management and Research.2020; Volume 12: 5619.     CrossRef
    • SNHG7 Facilitates Glioblastoma Progression by Functioning as a Molecular Sponge for MicroRNA-449b-5p and Thereby Increasing MYCN Expression
      Yaogang Chen, Shaoyong Yuan, Tieying Ning, Huiqing Xu, Bo Guan
      Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Combined effects of niclosamide and temozolomide against human glioblastoma tumorspheres
      Hyeong-Cheol Oh, Jin-Kyoung Shim, Junseong Park, Ji-Hyun Lee, Ran Joo Choi, Nam Hee Kim, Hyun Sil Kim, Ju Hyung Moon, Eui Hyun Kim, Jong Hee Chang, Jong In Yook, Seok-Gu Kang
      Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.2020; 146(11): 2817.     CrossRef
    • Clinical Characteristics of High-Grade Glioma with Primary Leptomeningeal Seeding at Initial Diagnosis in a Single Center Study
      Ji-Eyon Kwon, Kihwan Hwang, Kyeong-O Go, Chan Woo Wee, In Ah Kim, Yu Jung Kim, Gheeyoung Choe, Byung Se Choi, Jung Ho Han, Chae-Yong Kim
      Brain Tumor Research and Treatment.2020; 8(2): 77.     CrossRef
    • A Longitudinal Study of Lipid Peroxidation and Symptom Clusters in Patients With Brain Cancers
      Sanghee Kim
      Nursing Research.2018; 67(5): 387.     CrossRef
    • Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast (DSC) Perfusion MR in the Prediction of Long-Term Survival of Glioblastomas (GBM): Correlation with MGMT Promoter Methylation and 1p/19q Deletions
      Yong Wonn Kwon, Won-Jin Moon, Mina Park, Hong Gee Roh, Young Cho Koh, Sang Woo Song, Jin Woo Choi
      Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging.2018; 22(3): 158.     CrossRef
    • Notch1ablation radiosensitizes glioblastoma cells
      Na Han, Guangyuan Hu, Lei Shi, Guoxian Long, Lin Yang, Qingsong Xi, Qiuyun Guo, Jianhua Wang, Zhen Dong, Mengxian Zhang
      Oncotarget.2017; 8(50): 88059.     CrossRef
    • Impact of epidemiological characteristics of supratentorial gliomas in adults brought about by the 2016 world health organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system
      Haihui Jiang, Yong Cui, Junmei Wang, Song Lin
      Oncotarget.2017; 8(12): 20354.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy with Temozolomide Followed by Adjuvant Temozolomide for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Observation Study in Korea
      Cancer Res Treat. 2017;49(1):193-203.   Published online June 27, 2016
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2015.473
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    • 0
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy with Temozolomide Followed by Adjuvant Temozolomide for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Observation Study in Korea
    Image Image Image Image
    Fig. 1. Kaplan-Meier curves showing overall survival (OS) (A) and progression-free survival (PFS) (B) according to the extent of the resection. Patients who received gross total resection (GTR) showed a significantly longer OS (21.0 months vs. 15.8 months) and PFS (10.9 months vs. 9.1 months) than those who received subtotal resection (STR), partial resection (PR), or biopsy (Bx) alone.
    Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier curves showing overall survival (OS) (A) and progression-free survival (PFS) (B) according to the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status. Patients with the methylated MGMT promoter had a longer OS (23.9 months vs. 16.7 months) and longer PFS (13.2 months vs. 9.3 months) than those with the unmethylated MGMT promoter.
    Fig. 3. Kaplan-Meier curves showing overall survival (OS) (A) and progression-free survival (PFS) (B) according to the extent of the resection in patients with the methylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter. Kaplan-Meier curves showing OS (C) and PFS (D) according to the extent of resection in patients with unmethylated MGMT promoter. Patients receiving gross total resection (GTR) demonstrated a significantly longer OS than those receiving subtotal resection (STR), partial resection (PR), or biopsy (Bx) alone in both groups with methylated (28.6 months vs. 16.7 months) and unmethylated MGMT promoter (19.0 months vs. 14.8 months). For OS, patients receiving GTR demonstrated a significantly longer PFS than those receiving STR, PR, or Bx alone in both groups with methylated (20.7 months vs. 11.1 months) and unmethylated MGMT promoter (10.6 months vs. 7.2 months).
    Fig. 4. Kaplan-Meier curves showing overall survival (OS) (A) and progression-free survival (PFS) (B) according to the completion of six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with the methylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter. Kaplan-Meier curves showing OS (C) and PFS (D) according to completion of six cycles of adjuvant TMZ in patients with the unmethylated MGMT promoter. Patients with the methylated MGMT promoter had a longer OS and longer PFS as the number of adjuvant TMZ cycles approached six compared to those with the unmethylated MGMT promoter.

    Fig. 1.

    Fig. 2.

    Fig. 3.

    Fig. 4.

    Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy with Temozolomide Followed by Adjuvant Temozolomide for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Observation Study in Korea
    Variable Total patients (n=750)
    		 Methylated (n=89)
    		 Unmethylated (n=128)
    OS PFS OS PFS OS PFS
    p-value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
    TMZ < 3 cycles n=93 n=9 n=17
     Median (mo) 10.2±1.0 5.3±0.2 10.1+5.5 4.6±1.1 9.5±1.1 5.4±0.9
     95% Cl (mo) 8.3-12.1 4.9-5.7 0-20.9 2.5-6.7 7.3-11.7 3.6-72
    TMZ ≥ 3 cycles n=160 n=20 n=30
     Median (mo) 13.9±0.6 6.7±0.2 16.1±0.9 8.0±1.9 14.2±0.7 62±1.0
     95% Cl (mo) 12.8-15.0 62-7.2 14.3-17.9 4.3-11.7 12.9-15.5 4.2-82
    Patients who completed 6 cycles of adjuvant TMZ n=407 n=55 n=67
     Median (mo) 25.7±1.1 14.7±0.7 29.6±2.9 19.2±3.2 22.2±3.2 12.1±0.8
     95% Cl (mo) 23.6-27.8 13.3-16.1 23.9-35.3 13.0-25.4 16.0-28.4 10.6-13.6
    Patients who did not receive adjuvant TMZ n=90 n=5 n=14
     Median (mo) 6.5±0.9 3.8±0.2 5.8±0.9 4.2 4.9±2.2 3.8±0.4
     95% Cl (mo) 4.6-8.4 3.4-4.2 4.1-7.5 - 0.7-9.1 3.0-4.6
    Characteristics Stupp et al. (2005) [5,18] Oike et al. (2013) [10] Park et al. (2013) [25] Joo et al. (2012) [24] Present study
    Patients enrolled 287 45 50 103 750
    Age (yr) 56 (19-70) 60 (5-79) 49 (28-70) 57 (18-77) 57.5 (20-86)
    Extent of resection
     GTR 113 (39) 7 (15.6) 20 (40) 57 (55) 388 (51.7)
     STR 126 (44) 34 (75.6) 30 (60) 18 (18) 159 (21.2)
     PR 6 (6) 96 (12.8)
     Biopsy 48 (17) 4 (8.8) 12 (12) 22 (21) 107(14.3)
    Status of MGMT promoter
     Methylated 46 (43.4) 21 (47.7) 14 (28) 14 (47) 89 (41.0)
     Unmethylated 60 (56.6) 23 (52.3) 36 (72) 16 (53) 128 (59.0)
     Not assessed 181 1 - 73 533
    Six cycles of adjuvant TMZ completed after CCRT 105 (47) - 26 (52) 54 (52) 407 (61.7)
    Cycles of adjuvant TMZ 3 (0-7) 7 (0-54) - 6 (1-15) 6 (0-15)
    Dose of RT (BED, Gy) 60 (12-62) 72 (65-72) 60 59.4 (0.8-70.0) 60 (4.0-84.0)
    OS (95% Cl, mo) 14.6 (13.2-16.8) 15.8 (12.3-19.3) 23.0 (16.7-29.3) 18.0 (14.8-21.2) 17.5 (16.5-18.5)
     1-Yr OS (%) 61.1 71.1 - 73.7 72.1
     2-Yr OS (%) 26.5 27.7 - 38.0 36.0
     3-Yr OS (%) - 21.6 - - 21.0
    PFS (95% Cl, mo) 6.9 (5.8-8.2) - 9.0 (5.5-12.5) 10.0 (8.8-11.2) 10.1 (9.3-10.9)
    Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity 19 (7) 9 (20.4) 1 (2) 8 (8.1) 115 (15.3)
    Table 1. Differences in OS and PFS according to the completeness of adjuvant TMZ treatment

    Kaplan-Meier and log rank tests. OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TMZ, temozolomide; CI, confidence interval.

    Table 2. Patient characteristics, OS, and PFS in multiple studies

    Values are presented as number (%) or median (range) unless otherwise indicated. OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; GTR, gross total resection; STR, subtotal resection; PR, partial resection; MGMT, O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase; TMZ, temozolomide; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy with TMZ; RT, radiotherapy; BED, biologically effective dose; CI, confidence interval.

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment
    © Korean Cancer Association.
    Close layer
    TOP