Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Gliosarcoma is a rare histopathologic variant of glioblastoma traditionally associated with a poor prognosis. While gliosarcoma may represent a distinct clinical entity given its unique histologic composition and molecular features, its relative prognostic significance remains uncertain. While treatment of gliosarcoma generally encompasses the same standardized approach used in glioblastoma, supporting evidence is limited given its rarity. Here, we characterized 32 cases of gliosarcoma and retrospectively evaluated survival relative to 451 glioblastoma patients diagnosed during the same era within the same institution. Overall, we identified 22 primary gliosarcomas, representing 4.7% of WHO Grade IV primary glioblastomas, and 10 secondary gliosarcomas. With median age of 62, patients were predominately Caucasian (87.5%) and male (65.6%). Tumors with available molecular profiling were primarily MGMT-unmethylated (87.5%), IDH-1-preserved (100%) and EGFR wild-type (100%). Interestingly, while no significant median survival difference between primary gliosarcoma and glioblastoma was observed across the entire cohort (11.0 vs. 14.8 months, p = 0.269), median survival was worse for gliosarcoma specifically among patients who received modern temozolomide-based (TMZ) chemoradiotherapy (11.0 vs. 17.3 months, p = 0.006). Matched-pair analysis also trended toward worse median survival among gliosarcomas (11.0 vs. 19.6 months, log-rank p = 0.177, Breslow p = 0.010). While adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.206, p = 0.035) and TMZ-based chemotherapy (HR 0.531, p = 0.000) appeared protective, gliosarcoma emerged as a significantly poor prognostic factor on multivariate analysis (HR 3.27, p = 0.012). Collectively, our results suggest that gliosarcoma may still portend worse prognosis even with modern trimodality therapy.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7297205 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2718-z | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!