Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 135, Issue 1, pp 173–181 | Cite as

Definitive chemoradiation at high volume facilities is associated with improved survival in glioblastoma

  • Waqar Haque
  • Vivek Verma
  • E. Brian Butler
  • Bin S. Teh
Clinical Study

Abstract

The standard of care for glioblastoma (GBM) is maximal safe resection followed by concurrent chemoradiation (CRT). For several neoplasms, receipt of radiation treatment at high-volume facilities has been associated with improved overall survival (OS). The purpose of the present investigation was to determine if there was an association between receipt of CRT for GBM at facilities with a higher case volume and improved OS. The National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with GBM diagnosed between 2006 and 2012 that received full-course CRT. Statistics included Kaplan–Meier analysis to compare OS between patients treated facilities with the highest quartile volume (HVF) to those treated at lower case volume facilities, multivariate logistic regression to determine factors associated with treatment at a HVF, and Cox proportional hazards modeling to determine variables associated with OS. A total of 4892 patients met the specified criteria. Fourteen facilities (9.9%) treated the highest quartile volume of patients, while 69 (48.6%) treated the lowest quartile volume (LVF) of patients. Treatment at the HVF was associated with improved median OS (16.5 vs. 14.1 months, p < 0.001). Treatment at a LVF also independently predicted for worse OS on multivariate analysis, along with age >70 years, and a resection limited to a biopsy. This is the first study to demonstrate that treatment of GBM with CRT at a HVF is associated with improved survival. Major goals of future oncologic care should be to achieve greater standardization of quality of treatment across facilities with different case volumes.

Keywords

Glioblastoma Radiation therapy Chemotherapy Survival 

Notes

Funding

There was no research support for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that conflicts of interest do not exist.

References

  1. 1.
    Brain Tumor Statistics. http://www.abta.org/about-us/news/brain-tumor-statistics/. Accessed 1 Nov 2016
  2. 2.
    Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ et al (2005) Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352:987–996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Central nervous system cancers. Version 1.2016. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cns.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2016
  4. 4.
    Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP et al (2009) Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randmoised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol 10:459–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilbert MR, Wang M, Aldape KD et al (2013) Dose-dense temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a randomized phase III clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 32:4085–4091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilbert MR, Dignam JJ, Armstrong TS et al (2014) A randomized trial of bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. New Engl. J Med 370:699–708Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chinot OL, Wick W, Henriksoon R et al (2014) Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 370:709–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner AA et al (2015) Maintenance therapy with tumor-treaing fields plus temozolomide vs temozolomide alone for glioblastoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:2535–2543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernard-Arnoux F, Lamure M, Ducray F et al (2016) The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 18:1129–1136CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu CJ, Chou YJ, Teng CJ et al (2015) Association of surgeon volume and hospital volume with the outcome of patients receiving definitive surgery for colorectal cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Cancer 121:2782–2790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tuggle CT, Patel A, Broer N et al (2014) Increased hospital volume is associated with improved outcomes following abdominal-based breast reconstruction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 48:382–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gratian L, Pura J, Dinan M et al (2014) Treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with adrenocortical carcinoma associated with hospital case volume in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 21:3509–3514CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang EH, Rutter CE, Corso CD et al (2015) Patients selected for definitive concurrent chemoradiation at high-volume facilities achieve improved survival in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 10:937–943CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amini A, Jones BL, Ghosh D et al (2017) Impact of facility volume on outcomes in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer 123:228–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen YW, Mahal BA, Muralidhar V et al (2016) Association between treatment at a high-volume facility and improved survival for radiation-treated men with high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 15:683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kann BH, Park HS, Lester-Coll NH et al (2016) Postoperative radiotherapy patterns of care and survival implications for medulloblastoma in young children. JAMA Oncol 2:1574–1581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin JF, Berger JL, Krivak TC et al (2014) Impact of facility volume on therapy and survival for locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 132:416–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen AY, Fedewa S, Pavluch A et al (2010) Improved survival is associated with treatment at high-volume teaching facilities for patients with advanced stage laryngeal cancer. Cancer 116:4744–4752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bilimoria K, Stewart A, Winchester D, Ko C (2008) The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol 15:683–690CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haque W, Verma V, Butler EB, Teh BS (2017) Patterns of care and outcomes of multi-agent versus single-agent chemotherapy as part of multimodal management of low grade glioma. J Neurooncol. doi: 10.1007/s11060-017-2443-7 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haque W, Verma V, Fakhreddine M et al (2017) Addition of chemotherapy to definitive radiotherapy for IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer: analysis of he National Cancer Data Base. Gynecol Oncol 144:28–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moreno AC, Verma V, Hofstetter WL, Lin SH (2017) Patterns of care and treatment outcomes of elderly patients with stage I esophageal cancer: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. J Thorac Oncol 12:1152–1160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aneja S, Smith BD, Gross CP et al (2012) Geographic analysis of the radiation oncology workforce. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:1723–1729CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thumma SR, Fairbanks RK, Lamoreaux WT et al (2012) Effect of pretreatment clinical factors on overall survival in glioblastoma multiforme: a Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) population analysis. World J Surg Oncol 10:75CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barnholtz-Sloan JS, Maldonado JL, Williams VL et al (2007) Racial/ethnic differences in survival among older patients with a primary glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 85:171–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Das A, Tan WL, Teo J, Smith DR (2002) Glioblatoma multiforme in an Asian population: evidence for a distinct genetic pathway. J Neuroncol 60:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Waqar Haque
    • 1
  • Vivek Verma
    • 2
  • E. Brian Butler
    • 3
  • Bin S. Teh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyCHI St Luke’s HealthThe WoodlandsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyHouston Methodist HospitalHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations