您的位置:山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报(医学版)》

山东大学学报 (医学版) ›› 2022, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (10): 42-48.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1671-7554.0.2022.0091

• 临床医学 • 上一篇    下一篇

接受Stupp方案治疗的老年胶质母细胞瘤患者预后的影响因素

时萧寒1,李华玉1,李峰2   

  1. 1.山东大学护理与康复学院, 山东 济南 250012;2.山东第一医科大学附属肿瘤医院神经外科, 山东 济南 250117
  • 发布日期:2022-09-30
  • 通讯作者: 李峰. E-mail:lidoc@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    山东省重点研发计划(2017GSF218028)

Prognostic factors of elderly patients with glioblastoma treated with Stupp treatment

SHI Xiaohan1, LI Huayu1, LI Feng2   

  1. 1. School of Nursing and Rehabilitation, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong, China;
    2. Department of Neurosurgery, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, Jinan 250117, Shandong, China
  • Published:2022-09-30

摘要: 目的 探讨接受Stupp方案治疗的老年胶质母细胞瘤(GBM)患者预后的影响因素。 方法 分析2014年1月至2018年1月接受Stupp方案治疗的老年GBM患者病例资料,包括一般人口学、临床病例、Karnofsky功能状态(KPS)评分和分子标志物O6-甲基鸟嘌呤DNA甲基转移酶(MGMT)、异柠檬酸脱氢酶-1(IDH-1)、Ki67与TP53的表达等。通过Kaplan-Meier对总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)进行单因素分析,Cox回归模型进行多因素比较。 结果 共纳入91例样本,49例(53.8%)Ki67≥30%,IDH野生型78例(85.7%),MGMT甲基化35例(38.5%),TP53蛋白阳性44例(48.4%);老年GBM患者1、3、5年OS分别为41.8%、12.8%、9.6%,1、3年PFS分别为16.5%、7.6%;KPS评分(HR=0.445,95%CI:0.265~0.745,P=0.002)、认知功能(HR=2.675,95%CI:1.051~6.089,P=0.039)、MGMT(HR=0.384,95%CI:0.218~0.675, P=0.001)、ki67(HR=1.855,95%CI:1.157~2.975,P=0.010)与老年GBM患者OS有统计学意义的关联性,KPS评分(HR=0.598,95%CI:0.358~0.998,P=0.049)、MGMT(HR=0.335,95%CI:0.187~0.601,P<0.001)、IDH-1(HR=0.437,95%CI:0.200~0.958,P=0.039)、Ki67(HR=1.958,95%CI:1.203~3.187,P=0.007)与GBM患者PFS有统计学意义的关联性。 结论 老年GBM患者预后差,KPS评分、认知功能、MGMT、IDH-1和Ki67可预测其预后。

关键词: 胶质母细胞瘤, 老年, 预后因素, Stupp方案

Abstract: Objective To investigate the prognostic factors of elderly patients with glioblastoma(GBM)treated with Stupp treatment. Methods Clinical data of elderly GBM patients who received Stupp treatment during Jan. 2014 and Jan. 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, including demographic information, clinical characteristics, Karnofsky Performance Scale(KPS)score, molecular marker O6-methyl guanine DNA methyltransferase(MGMT), isocitrate dehydrogenase 1(IDH-1), expression of ki67 and TP53, and so on. Univariate analysis was performed on overall survival(OS)and progression-free survival(PFS)by Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression model was used for multivariate comparison. Results A total of 91 samples were enrolled, including 49(53.8%)cases of Ki67≥30%, 78(85.7%)cases of IDH wild type, 35(38.5%)cases of MGMT methylation, and 44(48.4%)cases of TP53 protein positive. The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year OS were 41.8 %, 12.8%, and 9.6%, respectively. The 1-year and 3-year PFS were 16.5% and 7.6%, respectively. KPS score(HR=0.445, 95%CI: 0.265-0.745, P=0.002), cognitive function(HR=2.675, 95%CI: 1.051-6.089, P=0.039), MGMT(HR=0.384, 95%CI: 0.218-0.675, P=0.001), Ki67(HR=1.855, 95%CI: 1.157-2.975, P=0.010)were significantly associated with OS. KPS(HR=0.598, 95%CI: 0.358-0.998, P=0.049), MGMT(HR=0.335, 95%CI: 0.187-0.601, P<0.001), IDH-1(HR=0.437, 95%CI: 0.200-0.958, P=0.039), Ki67(HR=1.958, 95%CI: 1.203-3.187, P=0.007)were significantly associated with PFS. Conclusion The prognosis of elderly GBM patients is poor. KPS score, cognitive function, MGMT, IDH-1 and Ki67 can predict the prognosis.

Key words: Glioblastoma, Elderly, Prognosis, Stupp treatment

中图分类号: 

  • R449
[1] Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma[J]. N Engl J Med, 2005, 352(10): 987-996.
[2] Ostrom QT, Cioffi G, Gittleman H, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2012-2016[J]. Neuro Oncol, 2019, 21(Suppl 5): v1-v100.
[3] Ostrom QT, Kinnersley B, Armstrong G, et al. Age-specific genome-wide association study in glioblastoma identifies increased proportion of ‘lower grade glioma’-like features associated with younger age[J]. Int J Cancer, 2018, 143(10): 2359-2366.
[4] 欧阳辉, 穆林森, 鲁明. 积极治疗老年胶质瘤[C] //第十五届中国医师协会神经外科医师年会摘要集. 深圳: 中国医师协会神经外科医师分会, 2020: 732.
[5] Glaser SM, Dohopolski MJ, Balasubramani GK, et al. Glioblastoma multiforme(GBM)in the elderly: initial treatment strategy and overall survival[J]. J Neurooncol, 2017, 134(1): 107-118.
[6] Alvarez DES, Alvarez-Vega MA, Balbin M, et al. Prognostic factors and survival study in high-grade glioma in the elderly[J]. Br J Neurosurg, 2016, 30(3): 330-336.
[7] Han Q, Liang H, Cheng P, et al. Subtotal resection on survival outcomes in elderly patients with high-grade glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Front Oncol, 2020, 10: 151. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00151.
[8] Barbagallo G, Altieri R, Garozzo M, et al. High grade glioma treatment in elderly people: is it different than in younger patients? analysis of surgical management guided by an intraoperative multimodal approach and its impact on clinical outcome[J]. Front Oncol, 2020, 10: 631255. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.631255.
[9] Young JS, Chmura SJ, Wainwright DA, et al. Management of glioblastoma in elderly patients[J]. J Neurol Sci, 2017, 380: 250-255. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2017.07.048.
[10] Pirkkalainen JM, Jaaskelainen AS, Halonen P. Retrospective single-center study on elderly patients with glioblastoma between 2014 and 2018 evaluating the effect of age and performance status on survival[J]. Neurooncol Pract, 2022, 9(2): 142-148.
[11] Youland RS, Schomas DA, Brown PD, et al. Patterns of care and treatment outcomes in older adults with low grade glioma: a 50-year experience[J]. J Neurooncol, 2017, 133(2): 339-346.
[12] Laigle-Donadey F, Greffard S. Management of glioblastomas in the elderly population[J]. Rev Neurol(Paris), 2020, 176(9): 724-732.
[13] Ene CI, Cimino PJ, Fine HA, et al. Incorporating genomic signatures into surgical and medical decision-making for elderly glioblastoma patients[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2020, 49(4): E11. doi: 10.3171/2020.7. FOCUS 20418.
[14] Fu C, Li Z, Mao Z. Association between social activities and cognitive function among the elderly in china: a cross-sectional study[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2018, 15(2): 231.
[15] Brown PD, Chung C, Liu DD, et al. A prospective phase II randomized trial of proton radiotherapy vs intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma[J]. Neuro Oncol, 2021, 23(8): 1337-1347.
[16] Johnson DR, Sawyer AM, Meyers CA, et al. Early measures of cognitive function predict survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma[J]. Neuro Oncol, 2012, 14(6): 808-816.
[17] Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P, et al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary[J]. Neuro Oncol, 2021, 23(8): 1231-1251.
[18] Wick W, Weller M, van den Bent M, et al. MGMT testing-the challenges for biomarker-based glioma treatment[J]. Nat Rev Neurol, 2014, 10(7): 372-385.
[19] Pirozzi CJ, Yan H. The implications of IDH mutations for cancer development and therapy[J]. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2021, 18(10): 645-661.
[20] Zhao F, Zhang J, Li P, et al. Prognostic value of Ki-67 index in adult medulloblastoma after accounting for molecular subgroup: a retrospective clinical and molecular analysis[J]. J Neurooncol, 2018, 139(2): 333-340.
[21] Kawasoe T, Takeshima H, Yamashita S, et al. Detection of p53 mutations in proliferating vascular cells in glioblastoma multiforme[J]. J Neurosurg, 2015, 122(2): 317-323.
[22] Wang Q, Hu B, Hu X, et al. Tumor evolution of glioma-intrinsic gene expression subtypes associates with immunological changes in the microenvironment[J]. Cancer Cell, 2018, 33(1): 152.
[23] 李培栋, 王新军, 单峤, 等. 脑胶质瘤细胞MGMT甲基化状态与细胞对烷化剂耐药性的关系[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2015, 35(16): 4463-4464.
[24] Kim BS, Kong DS, Seol HJ, et al. MGMT promoter methylation status as a prognostic factor for the outcome of gamma knife radiosurgery for recurrent glioblastoma[J]. J Neurooncol, 2017, 133(3): 615-622.
[25] Eckel-Passow JE, Lachance DH, Molinaro AM, et al. Glioma Groups Based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT Promoter Mutations in Tumors[J]. N Engl J Med, 2015, 372(26): 2499-2508.
[26] Louis DN, Giannini C, Capper D, et al. cIMPACT-NOW update 2: diagnostic clarifications for diffuse midline glioma, H3 K27M-mutant and diffuse astrocytoma/anaplastic astrocytoma, IDH-mutant[J]. Acta Neuropathol, 2018, 135(4): 639-642.
[27] Ceccarelli M, Barthel FP, Malta TM, et al. Molecular profiling reveals biologically discrete subsets and pathways of progression in diffuse glioma[J]. Cell, 2016, 164(3): 550-563.
[28] Luo Y, Zhang X, Mo M, et al. High Ki-67 immunohistochemical reactivity correlates with poor prognosis in bladder carcinoma: a comprehensive meta-analysis with 13,053 patients involved[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2016, 95(15): e3337. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003337.
[29] Petrelli F, Viale G, Cabiddu M, et al. Prognostic value of different cut-off levels of Ki-67 in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 64,196 patients[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2015, 153(3): 477-491.
[30] Johannessen AL, Torp SH. The clinical value of Ki-67/MIB-1 labeling index in human astrocytomas[J]. Pathol Oncol Res, 2006, 12(3): 143-147.
[31] Preusser M, Hoeftberger R, Woehrer A, et al. Prognostic value of Ki67 index in anaplastic oligodendroglial tumours-a translational study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor Group[J]. Histopathology, 2012, 60(6): 885-894.
[1] 高中霞,张铭,樊明德,谭晨阳,王梦迪,王超,樊跃飞,丁守銮,王成伟. 伽玛刀治疗81例肺癌脑转移瘤的疗效及预后因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(8): 44-49.
[2] 董晓倩,李冠江,许倩倩,许洪伟. 66例经ERCP联合熊去氧胆酸治疗老年胆总管并胆囊结石患者与其他疗法比较[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(5): 59-66.
[3] 赵思博,彭立,凌鸿翔. 农村老年人医疗保险参与和自杀风险的关系[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(4): 113-118.
[4] 叶艺,张洁,赵秋阁,范秀珍. 老年服务择业动机量表在毕业学年大学生中的修订及信效度检验[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(2): 75-80.
[5] 苏永刚,王睿,杨同卫. 健康中国视域下老年人群自杀的影响因素及预防对策[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(2): 8-13.
[6] 于书卷,王美娟,陈丽,曹英娟,吕晓燕,刘雪燕,林鹏,颜景政. 老年2型糖尿病患者轻度认知功能障碍的影响因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(11): 108-112.
[7] 王辛,郭丹,梁佳瑞,郭丽,王健. 社会资本对老年人健康促进行为的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(7): 97-103.
[8] 谢同辉,陈志强,常建华,赵丹文,徐博文,智绪亭. 肝内胆管癌根治性切除术后生存因素分析及列线图的建立[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(4): 93-99.
[9] 邢志群,李德军,赵宝,许春阳,纪洪生. 45例老年患者术后谵妄与乙酰胆碱酯酶活性及炎症指标关联性[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(3): 92-97.
[10] 郝文婷,李洁,景正月,赵丹,袁叶敏,于才婷,周成超. 衰弱在农村慢性病老年人睡眠质量与生活质量间的中介作用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(2): 102-107.
[11] 王剑,周文婧,薛知易,刘晓菲. 脑胶质母细胞瘤模型研究概况及类脑模型的研发应用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(8): 74-80.
[12] 田宝睿,张永超,韩晓阳,田颖颖,王传玺. 利用数据库预测基因与胶质母细胞瘤的关联[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(6): 8-13.
[13] 吕岩,于潇,蔺新英,赵琦,王保珍. 聊城市老年女性膳食模式与抑郁症状的关系[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(11): 103-108.
[14] 景翔,王亚丽,卢露,夏宇,焦安安,李耀祖,徐凌忠. 农村老年人日常活动能力、社会支持与孤独感的关系:一般自我效能的中介作用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 58(1): 94-99.
[15] 朱大伟,于保荣. 基于蒙特卡洛模拟的我国老年人长期照护需求测算[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2019, 57(8): 82-88.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 马青源,蒲沛东,韩飞,王超,朱洲均,王维山,史晨辉. miR-27b-3p调控SMAD1对骨肉瘤细胞增殖、迁移和侵袭作用的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 32 -37 .
[2] 张宝文,雷香丽,李瑾娜,罗湘俊,邹容. miR-21-5p靶向调控TIMP3抑制2型糖尿病肾病小鼠肾脏系膜细胞增殖及细胞外基质堆积[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 7 -14 .
[3] 付洁琦,张曼,张晓璐,李卉,陈红. Toll样受体4抑制过氧化物酶体增殖物激活受体γ加重血脂蓄积的分子机制[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 24 -31 .
[4] 丁祥云,于清梅,张文芳,庄园,郝晶. 胰岛素样生长因子II在84例多囊卵巢综合征患者颗粒细胞中的表达和促排卵结局的相关性[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 60 -66 .
[5] 郭志华,赵大庆,邢园,王薇,梁乐平,杨静,赵倩倩. Ⅰ期端端吻合术治疗重度颈段气管狭窄临床分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 72 -76 .
[6] 肖娟,肖强,丛伟,李婷,丁守銮,张媛,邵纯纯,吴梅,刘佳宁,贾红英. 两种甲状腺超声数据报告系统诊断效能的比较[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 53 -59 .
[7] 罗昕,何兵,聂清生,侯震波,董军,李玉花,曾祥芹,刘伟,孔德民,曹金凤. 磁共振扩散加权成像单指数模型与扩散峰度成像模型在61例肾透明细胞癌分级中的对比[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 89 -95 .
[8] 徐继禧,陈伟健. 髓内弥漫性中线胶质瘤伴H3 K27M突变1例[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 96 -101 .
[9] 龙婷婷,谢明,周璐,朱俊德. Noggin蛋白对小鼠脑缺血再灌注损伤后学习和记忆能力与齿状回结构的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 15 -23 .
[10] 李宁,李娟,谢艳,李培龙,王允山,杜鲁涛,王传新. 长链非编码RNA AL109955.1在80例结直肠癌组织中的表达及对细胞增殖与迁移侵袭的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 38 -46 .