Advertisement

Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 137, Issue 2, pp 409–415 | Cite as

Outcomes after second surgery for recurrent glioblastoma: a retrospective case–control study

  • Alysson Wann
  • Patrick A. Tully
  • Elizabeth H. Barnes
  • Zarnie Lwin
  • Rosalind Jeffree
  • Katharine J. Drummond
  • Hui Gan
  • Mustafa Khasraw
Clinical Study

Abstract

Studies looking at the benefit of surgery at first relapse (second surgery) for recurrent glioblastoma were confounded by including patients with varying grades of glioma, performance status and extent of resection. This case–controlled study aims to remove these confounders to assess the survival impact of second surgery in recurrent glioblastoma. Retrospective data on patients with glioblastoma recurrence at two tertiary Australian hospitals from July 2009 to April 2015 was reviewed. Patients who had surgery at recurrence were matched with those who did not undergo surgery at recurrence, based on the extent of their initial resection and age. Overall survival (OS1 assessed from initial diagnosis and OS2 from the date of recurrence) as well as functional outcomes after resection were analysed. There were 120 patients (60 in each institution); median age at diagnosis was 56 years. Median OS1 was 14 months (95% CI 11.5–15.7) versus 22 months (95% CI 18–25) in patients who did not undergo second surgery and those with surgery at recurrence. OS2 was improved by second surgery (4.7 vs 9.6, HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38–0.72, P < 0.001), and by chemotherapy, given at recurrence, (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24–0.92, P = 0.03). After second surgery, 80% did not require rehabilitation and 61% were independently mobile. Second surgery for recurrent glioblastoma was associated with a survival advantage. Chemotherapy independent of surgery, also improved survival. Functional outcomes were encouraging. More research is required in the era of improved surgical techniques and new antineoplastic therapies.

Keywords

Glioblastoma recurrence Second surgery Survival Chemotherapy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was assisted by the ‘Support for Cancer Clinical Trials 2013–2016’ Cancer Australia Grant to the Cooperative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology (COGNO). Mr Craig Love, Royal Melbourne Hospital for assistance with data collection.

Disclosures

Nil to disclose.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Farah P, Ondracek A, Chen Y, Wolinsky Y et al (2013) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2006–2010. Neuro Oncol 15(2):1–56Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    deSouza RM, Shaweis H, Han C et al (2016) Has the survival of patients with glioblastoma changed over the years? Br J Cancer 114:146–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJB et al (2005) Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352(10):987–996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown TR, Brennan MC, Li M, Church EW, Brandmeir NJ, Rakszawski KL et al (2016) Association of the extent of resection with survival in glioblastoma. a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2(11):1460–1469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harsh GR, Levin VA, Gutin PH, Saeger M, Silver P, Wilson CB et al (1987) Reoperation for recurrent glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma. Neurosurgery 21(5):607–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barker FG, Chang SM, Gutin PH, Malec MK, McDermott MW, Prados MD et al (1998) Survival and functional status after resection of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Neurosurgery 42(4):709–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ammirati M, Galicich JH, Arbit E, Liao Y et al (1987) Reoperation in the treatment of recurrent intracranial malignant gliomas. Neurosurgery 21(5):607–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gorlia T, Stupp R, Brandes AA, Rampling RR, Fumoleau P, Dittrich C et al (2012) New prognostic factors and calculators for outcome prediction in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: a pooled analysis of EORTC brain tumor group phase I and II clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 48(8):1176–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ortega A, Sarmiento JM, Ly D et al (2016) Multiple resections and survival of recurrent glioblastoma patients in the temozolomide era. J Clin Neurosci 24:105–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Young B, Oldfield EH, Markesbuery WR, Haack D, Tibbs PA, McCombs P et al (1981) Reoperation in glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 55:917–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park JK, Hodges T, Arko L, Shen M, Iacono DD, McNall A et al (2010) Scale to predict survival after surgery for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 28(24):3838–3843CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGirt MJ, Chaichana KL, Gathinji M, Attenello FJ, Than K, Olivi A et al (2009) Independent association of extent of resection with survival in patients with malignant brain astrocytoma. J Neurosurg 110(1):156–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yong RL, Wu T, Mihatov N, Shen MJ, Brown MA, Zaghloul KA et al (2014) Residual tumor volume and patient survival following reoperation for recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 121(4):802–809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clarke JL, Ennis MM, Yung WK, Chang SM, Wen PY, Cloughesy TF, North American Brain Tumor Consortium et al (2011) Is surgery at progression a prognostic marker for improved 6-month progression-free survival or overall survival for patients with recurrent glioblastoma? Neuro-Oncology 13(10):1118–1124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Helseth R, Helseth E, Johannesen TB, Langberg CW, Lote K, Rønning P et al (2012) Overall survival, prognostic factors, and repeated surgery in a consecutive series of 516 patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Acta Neurol Scand 122(3):159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parakh S, Thursfield V, Cher L, Dally M, Drummond K, Murphy M et al (2016) Recurrent glioblastoma: current patterns of care in an Australian population. J Clin Neurosci 24:78–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chaichana KL, Zadnik P, Weingart JD et al (2013) Multiple resections for patients with glioblastoma: prolonging survival. J Neurosurg 118(4):812–820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Azoulay M, Santos F, Shenouda G et al (2017) Benefit of re-operation and salvage therapies for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: results from a single institution. J Neuro-Oncol 132(3):419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    NCCN (2016) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: central nervous system. Version 1.0 2016; 25.2016. National Comprehensive Cancer Network [Internet] Fort Washington. http://www.NCCN.org
  20. 20.
    Easaw JC, Mason WP, Perry J, Laperriere N, Eisenstat DD, Del Maestro R et al (2011) Canadian recommendations for the treatment of recurrent or progressive glioblastoma multiforme. Curr Oncol 18(3):126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rundle-Thiele D, Day B, Stringer B et al (2015) Using the apparent diffusion coefficient to identifying MGMT promoter methylation status early in glioblastoma: importance of analytical method. J Med Radiat Sci 62(2):92–98CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tully PA, Gogos AJ, Love C, Liew D, Drummond KJ, Morokoff AP (2016) Reoperation for recurrent glioblastoma and its association with survival benefit. Neurosurgery 79(5):678–689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stummer W, Pichlmeier U, Meinel T, Wiestler OD, Zanella F, Reulen HJ, ALA-Glioma Study Group et al (2006) Fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid for resection of malignant glioma: a randomised controlled multicentre Phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 7(5):392–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Skier BS, Enger PO, Brogger J, Ganz JC, Thorsen F, Heggdall JI et al (2012) Gamma knife surgery versus reoperation for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. World Neurosurg 77(12):658–669Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reardon DA, Omuro A, Brandes A et al (2017) OS10.3 randomized phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab vs bevacizumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: checkmate 143. Neuro-Oncology (19(3):21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Olivia Newton-John Cancer & Wellness Research CentreMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryRoyal Melbourne HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.The Cooperative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology (COGNO) and National Health and Medical Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Royal Brisbane HospitalBrisbaneAustralia
  5. 5.School of Cancer MedicineLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  6. 6.Department of MedicineMelbourne UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  7. 7.School of MedicineUniversity of Notre DameSydneyAustralia
  8. 8.Department of SurgeryUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  9. 9.School of MedicineUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations