Advertisement

Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 135, Issue 1, pp 161–171 | Cite as

Impact of removed tumor volume and location on patient outcome in glioblastoma

  • Al-Wala Awad
  • Michael Karsy
  • Nader Sanai
  • Robert Spetzler
  • Yue Zhang
  • Yizhe Xu
  • Mark A. Mahan
Clinical Study

Abstract

Glioblastoma is an aggressive primary brain tumor with devastatingly poor prognosis. Multiple studies have shown the benefit of wider extent of resection (EOR) on patient overall survival (OS) and worsened survival with larger preoperative tumor volumes. However, the concomitant impact of postoperative tumor volume and eloquent location on OS has yet to be fully evaluated. We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients treated for glioblastoma from January 2006 through December 2011. Adherence to standardized postoperative chemoradiation protocols was used as an inclusion criterion. Detailed volumetric and location analysis was performed on immediate preoperative and immediate postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cox proportional hazard modeling approach was employed to explore the modifying effects of EOR and eloquent location after adjusting for various confounders and associated characteristics, such as preoperative tumor volume and demographics. Of the 471 screened patients, 141 were excluded because they did not meet all inclusion criteria. The mean (±SD) age of the remaining 330 patients (60.6% male) was 58.9 ± 12.9 years; the mean preoperative and postoperative Karnofsky performance scores (KPSs) were 76.2 ± 10.3 and 80.0 ± 16.6, respectively. Preoperative tumor volume averaged 33.2 ± 29.0 ml, postoperative residual was 4.0 ± 8.1 ml, and average EOR was 88.6 ± 17.6%. The observed average follow-up was 17.6 ± 15.7 months, and mean OS was 16.7 ± 14.4 months. Survival analysis showed significantly shorter survival for patients with lesions in periventricular (16.8 ± 1.7 vs. 21.5 ± 1.4 mo, p = 0.03), deep nuclei/basal ganglia (11.6 ± 1.7 vs. 20.6 ± 1.2, p = 0.002), and multifocal (12.0 ± 1.4 vs. 21.3 ± 1.3 months, p = 0.0001) locations, but no significant influence on survival was seen for eloquent cortex sites (p = 0.14, range 0.07–0.9 for all individual locations). OS significantly improved with EOR in univariate analysis, averaging 22.3, 19.7, and 13.2 months for >90, 80–90, and 70–80% resection, respectively. Survival was 22.8, 19.0, and 12.7 months for 0, 0–5, and 5–10 ml postoperative residual, respectively. A hazard model showed that larger preoperative tumor volume [hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 1.02–1.07], greater age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), multifocality (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01–2.04), and deep nuclei/basal ganglia (HR 2.05, CI 1.27–3.3) were the most predictive of poor survival after adjusting for KPS and tumor location. There was a negligible but significant interaction between EOR and preoperative tumor volume (HR 0.9995, 95% CI 0.9993–0.9998), but EOR alone did not correlate with OS after adjusting for other factors. The interaction between EOR and preoperative tumor volume represented tumor volume removed during surgery. In conclusion, EOR alone was not an important predictor of outcome during GBM treatment once preoperative tumor volume, age, and deep nuclei/basal ganglia location were factored. Instead, the interaction between EOR and preoperative volume, representing reduced disease burden, was an important predictor of reducing OS. Removal of tumor from eloquent cortex did not impact postoperative KPS. These results suggest aggressive surgical treatment to reduce postoperative residual while maintaining postoperative KPS may aid patient survival outcomes for a given tumor size and location.

Keywords

Glioblastoma Extent of resection Postoperative residual EOR Overall survival Removed tumor volume 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Kristin Kraus, MSc, for her editorial assistance.

Funding

This study was not funded by any specific grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Wala Al-Awad, MD, declares that he has no conflict of interest. Michael Karsy, MD, PhD, declares that he has no conflict of interest. Nader Sanai, MD, declares that he has no conflict of interest. Robert Spetzler, MD, declares that he has no conflict of interest. Yue Zhang, PhD, declares that he has no conflict of interest. Yizhe Xu, MS, declares that she has no conflict of interest. Mark A. Mahan, MD, declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was handled under an exemption.

Supplementary material

11060_2017_2562_MOESM1_ESM.doc (86 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 85 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Karsy M, Neil JA, Guan J, Mahan MA, Colman H, Jensen RL (2015) A practical review of prognostic correlations of molecular biomarkers in glioblastoma. Neurosurg Focus 38(3):E4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Taphoorn MJ, Janzer RC, Ludwin SK, Allgeier A, Fisher B, Belanger K, Hau P, Brandes AA, Gijtenbeek J, Marosi C, Vecht CJ, Mokhtari K, Wesseling P, Villa S, Eisenhauer E, Gorlia T, Weller M, Lacombe D, Cairncross JG, Mirimanoff RO, European Organisation for R, Treatment of Cancer Brain T, Radiation Oncology G, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials G (2009) 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 10:459–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanai N, Berger MS (2008) Glioma extent of resection and its impact on patient outcome. Neurosurgery 62:753–764CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sanai N, Berger MS (2012) Recent surgical management of gliomas. Adv Exp Med Biol 746:12–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grabowski MM, Recinos PF, Nowacki AS, Schroeder JL, Angelov L, Barnett GH, Vogelbaum MA (2014) Residual tumor volume versus extent of resection: predictors of survival after surgery for glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 121:1115–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lacroix M, Abi-Said D, Fourney DR, Gokaslan ZL, Shi W, DeMonte F, Lang FF, McCutcheon IE, Hassenbusch SJ, Holland E, Hess K, Michael C, Miller D, Sawaya R (2001) A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. J Neurosurg 95:190–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bloch O, Han SJ, Cha S, Sun MZ, Aghi MK, McDermott MW, Berger MS, Parsa AT (2012) Impact of extent of resection for recurrent glioblastoma on overall survival: clinical article. J Neurosurg 117:1032–1038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanai N, Polley MY, McDermott MW, Parsa AT, Berger MS (2011) An extent of resection threshold for newly diagnosed glioblastomas. J Neurosurg 115:3–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauchet L, Mathieu-Daude H, Fabbro-Peray P, Rigau V, Fabbro M, Chinot O, Pallusseau L, Carnin C, Laine K, Schlama A, Thiebaut A, Patru MC, Bauchet F, Lionnet M, Wager M, Faillot T, Taillandier L, Figarella-Branger D, Capelle L, Loiseau H, Frappaz D, Campello C, Kerr C, Duffau H, Reme-Saumon M, Tretarre B, Daures JP, Henin D, Labrousse F, Menei P, Honnorat J, Societe Francaise de N, Club de Neuro-Oncologie of the Societe Francaise de N, Societe Francaise de N, Association des Neuro-Oncologues d’Expression F (2010) Oncological patterns of care and outcome for 952 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma in 2004. Neuro Oncol 12:725–735CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stummer W, Reulen HJ, Meinel T, Pichlmeier U, Schumacher W, Tonn JC, Rohde V, Oppel F, Turowski B, Woiciechowsky C, Franz K, Pietsch T, Group AL-GS (2008) Extent of resection and survival in glioblastoma multiforme: identification of and adjustment for bias. Neurosurgery 62:564–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li YM, Suki D, Hess K, Sawaya R (2016) The influence of maximum safe resection of glioblastoma on survival in 1229 patients: can we do better than gross-total resection? J Neurosurg 124:977–988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wood JR, Green SB, Shapiro WR (1988) The prognostic importance of tumor size in malignant gliomas: a computed tomographic scan study by the Brain Tumor Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 6:338–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lobato RD, Alday R, Gomez PA, Rivas JJ, Dominguez J, Cabrera A, Madero S, Ayerbe J (1996) Brain oedema in patients with intracranial meningioma. Correlation between clinical, radiological, and histological factors and the presence and intensity of oedema. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 138:485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chaichana KL, Jusue-Torres I, Navarro-Ramirez R, Raza SM, Pascual-Gallego M, Ibrahim A, Hernandez-Hermann M, Gomez L, Ye X, Weingart JD, Olivi A, Blakeley J, Gallia GL, Lim M, Brem H, Quinones-Hinojosa A (2014) Establishing percent resection and residual volume thresholds affecting survival and recurrence for patients with newly diagnosed intracranial glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 16:113–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chaichana KL, Cabrera-Aldana EE, Jusue-Torres I, Wijesekera O, Olivi A, Rahman M, Quinones-Hinojosa A (2014) When gross total resection of a glioblastoma is possible, how much resection should be achieved? World Neurosurg 82:e257–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Prados MD (2004) Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis. Neuro Oncol 6:227–235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGirt MJ, Mukherjee D, Chaichana KL, Than KD, Weingart JD, Quinones-Hinojosa A (2009) Association of surgically acquired motor and language deficits on overall survival after resection of glioblastoma multiforme. Neurosurgery 65:463–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rahman M, Abbatematteo J, De Leo EK, Kubilis PS, Vaziri S, Bova F, Sayour E, Mitchell D, Quinones-Hinojosa A (2017) The effects of new or worsened postoperative neurological deficits on survival of patients with glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 127:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karremann M, Rausche U, Roth D, Kuhn A, Pietsch T, Gielen GH, Warmuth-Metz M, Kortmann RD, Straeter R, Gnekow A, Wolff JE, Kramm CM (2013) Cerebellar location may predict an unfavourable prognosis in paediatric high-grade glioma. Br J Cancer 109:844–851CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsa AT, Wachhorst S, Lamborn KR, Prados MD, McDermott MW, Berger MS, Chang SM (2005) Prognostic significance of intracranial dissemination of glioblastoma multiforme in adults. J Neurosurg 102:622–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramakrishna R, Barber J, Kennedy G, Rizvi A, Goodkin R, Winn RH, Ojemann GA, Berger MS, Spence AM, Rostomily RC (2010) Imaging features of invasion and preoperative and postoperative tumor burden in previously untreated glioblastoma: correlation with survival. Surg Neurol Int. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.68337 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beiko J, Suki D, Hess KR, Fox BD, Cheung V, Cabral M, Shonka N, Gilbert MR, Sawaya R, Prabhu SS, Weinberg J, Lang FF, Aldape KD, Sulman EP, Rao G, McCutcheon IE, Cahill DP (2014) IDH1 mutant malignant astrocytomas are more amenable to surgical resection and have a survival benefit associated with maximal surgical resection. Neuro Oncol 16:81–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gorlia T, Stupp R, Brandes AA, Rampling RR, Fumoleau P, Dittrich C, Campone MM, Twelves CC, Raymond E, Hegi ME, Lacombe D, van den Bent MJ (2012) New prognostic factors and calculators for outcome prediction in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: a pooled analysis of EORTC Brain Tumour Group phase I and II clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 48:1176–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chaichana KL, McGirt MJ, Frazier J, Attenello F, Guerrero-Cazares H, Quinones-Hinojosa A (2008) Relationship of glioblastoma multiforme to the lateral ventricles predicts survival following tumor resection. J Neurooncol 89:219–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chaichana KL, Jusue-Torres I, Lemos AM, Gokaslan A, Cabrera-Aldana EE, Ashary A, Olivi A, Quinones-Hinojosa A (2014) The butterfly effect on glioblastoma: is volumetric extent of resection more effective than biopsy for these tumors? J Neurooncol 120:625–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Babu R, Komisarow JM, Agarwal VJ, Rahimpour S, Iyer A, Britt D, Karikari IO, Grossi PM, Thomas S, Friedman AH, Adamson C (2016) Glioblastoma in the elderly: the effect of aggressive and modern therapies on survival. J Neurosurg 124:998–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duffau H (2014) The huge plastic potential of adult brain and the role of connectomics: new insights provided by serial mappings in glioma surgery. Cortex 58:325–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang T, Wang Y, Fan X, Ma J, Li S, Jiang T, Wang L (2014) Anatomical localization of p53 mutated tumors: a radiographic study of human glioblastomas. J Neurol Sci 346:94–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang Y, Fan X, Zhang C, Zhang T, Peng X, Li S, Wang L, Ma J, Jiang T (2014) Anatomical specificity of O-6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase protein expression in glioblastomas. J Neurooncol 120:331–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen R, Ravindra VM, Cohen AL, Jensen RL, Salzman KL, Prescot AP, Colman H (2015) Molecular features assisting in diagnosis, surgery, and treatment decision making in low-grade gliomas. Neurosurg Focus 38:E2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience CenterUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryBarrow Neurological InstitutePhoenixUSA
  3. 3.Study Design & Biostatistics CenterUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations