What are the effects of external beam radiation fractionation schedules in people with high-grade glioma?

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
High Grade Glioma ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Fractionation Schedules

scholarly journals External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luluel Khan ◽  
Hany Soliman ◽  
Arjun Sahgal ◽  
James Perry ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
High Grade Glioma ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Beam Radiation

External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luluel Khan ◽  
Hany Soliman ◽  
Arjun Sahgal ◽  
James Perry ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
High Grade Glioma ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Beam Radiation

Secondary gliosarcoma after diagnosis of glioblastoma: clinical experience with 30 consecutive patients

2010 ◽  
Vol 112 (5) ◽  
pp. 990-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seunggu J. Han ◽  
Isaac Yang ◽  
Jose J. Otero ◽  
Brian J. Ahn ◽  
Tarik Tihan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Malignant Glioma ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
High Grade Glioma ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Molecular Profile ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Additional Chemotherapy ◽  
Radiotherapy Alone ◽  
Neurological Surgery

Object Gliosarcoma can arise secondarily, after conventional adjuvant treatment of high-grade glioma. The current literature on the occurrence of secondary gliosarcoma (SGS) after glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is limited, with only 12 reported cases. The authors present a large series of histologically confirmed SGSs, with follow-up to describe the clinical and radiological presentation, pathological diagnosis, and treatment outcomes. Methods Gliosarcoma cases were identified using the University of California, San Francisco's Departments of Neurological Surgery and Neuropathology databases. Through a retrospective chart review, cases of gliosarcoma were considered SGS if the following inclusion criteria were met: 1) the patient had a previously diagnosed intracranial malignant glioma that did not have gliosarcoma components; and 2) the histopathological tissue diagnosis of the recurrence confirmed gliosarcoma according to the most current WHO criteria. Extensive review of clinical, surgical, and pathology notes was performed to gather clinical and pathological data on these cases. Results Thirty consecutive patients in whom SGS had been diagnosed between 1996 and 2008 were included in the analysis. All patients had previously received a diagnosis of malignant glioma. For the initial malignant glioma, all patients underwent resection, and 25 patients received both external-beam radiation and chemotherapy. Three patients received radiotherapy alone, 1 patient was treated with chemotherapy alone, and 1 patient's tumor rapidly recurred as gliosarcoma, requiring surgical intervention prior to initiation of adjuvant therapy. The median time from diagnosis of the initial tumor to diagnosis of gliosarcoma was 8.5 months (range 0.5–25 months). All but 1 patient (who only had a biopsy) underwent a second operation for gliosarcoma; 8 patients went on to receive radiotherapy (4 had brachytherapy, 3 had external-beam radiation, and 1 had Gamma Knife surgery); and 14 patients received additional chemotherapy. The median length of survival from the time of gliosarcoma diagnosis was 4.4 months (range 0.7–46 months). The median survival from the time of the original GBM diagnosis was 12.6 months (range 5.7–47.4 months). Patients who had received concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide for GBM had worse outcomes than those who had not (4.3 and 10.5 months, respectively; p = 0.045). There was no difference in time to diagnosis of gliosarcoma in these 2 groups (8 and 8.5 months; p = 0.387). Two patients who had not received radiation therapy for GBM had an anecdotally very prolonged survival (20.9 and 46.4 months). Conclusions The data underscore the difficulty associated with management of this disease. The strikingly poor survival of patients with SGS who had previously received combined radiation and temozolomide chemotherapy for GBM may reflect a unique molecular profile of GBM that eventually recurs as SGS. Further work will be required, controlling for multiple prognostic factors with larger numbers of patients.

Surgery Versus Radiation Treatment for High-Grade Neuroendocrine Cancer of Uterine Cervix: A Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Database Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 188-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei-Hsien Hou ◽  
Tim E. Schultheiss ◽  
Jeffrey Y. Wong ◽  
Mark T. Wakabayashi ◽  
Yi-Jen Chen
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Radical Surgery ◽  
Local Treatment ◽  
International Federation ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to assess treatment and other factors impacting survival in cervical high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (HGNEC).Methods/MaterialsWe identified patients with cervical HGNECs diagnosed during 1988 to 2012 in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. We determined overall survival by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages and by local treatment modalities, that is, radical surgery versus external beam radiation treatment (EBRT) plus brachytherapy using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test. We also determined factors of age, stage, and treatment modality impacting survival using proportional hazard analysis.ResultsWe identified 832 cases of cervical HGNECs in the database. After excluding cases with incomplete stage data, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages I to IV distributions were 196 (28.0%), 69 (9.9%), 175 (25.0%), and 260 patients (37.1%), respectively. Radical surgery and primary radiotherapy yielded similar 5-year overall survival for stages I (61% vs 53%,P= 0.27), II (48% vs 28%,P= 0.308), and III (33% vs 28%,P= 0.408) patients. External beam radiation treatment plus brachytherapy did not yield superior survival than EBRT alone in stage I (48% vs 49%,P= 0.799), II (37% vs 20%,P= 0.112), or III (25% vs 32%,P= 0.636) patients. Age (P= 0.004) and stage (stage II: hazard ratio [HR], 1.78,P= 0.013; stage III: HR, 2.42;P< 0.001) were independent factors impacting survival but not local treatment modality (EBRT: HR, 1.30,P= 0.17; EBRT plus brachytherapy: HR, 1.16;P= 0.417).ConclusionsPatients with cervical HGNECs had poor prognosis. Primary treatment by radical surgery or external beam radiotherapy with or without brachytherapy yielded equally poor survival.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document