scholarly journals QLIF-33. ACTIVE COPING STRATEGIES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVED OVERALL SURVIVAL IN NEWLY DIAGNOSED GLIOBLASTOMA: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (suppl_6) ◽  
pp. vi208-vi208
Author(s):  
Sied Kebir ◽  
Michael Niessen ◽  
Alexandra Kellner ◽  
Volker Tschuschke ◽  
Ulrich Herrlinger ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (suppl_3) ◽  
pp. iii121-iii121 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kebir ◽  
M. Niessen ◽  
A. Kellner ◽  
V. Tschuschke ◽  
U. Herrlinger ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13530-e13530
Author(s):  
Yuqing Sun ◽  
Carlos G Romo ◽  
Pavan Shah ◽  
Stuart A. Grossman

e13530 Background: Standard therapy for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) includes concurrent temozolomide (TMZ) and radiation (RT) followed by six monthly cycles of adjuvant TMZ. Although TMZ improves survival for MGMT methylated patients, it is unclear if this benefit is from the TMZ given with the radiation, the adjuvant TMZ, or if both are required. This retrospective study was designed to identify MGMT methylated patients who started treatment with near-normal functional status, completed concurrent RT+TMZ, but did not receive adjuvant TMZ to estimate if their survival was significantly less than expected. Methods: We reviewed charts from 190 adults diagnosed with GBM at Johns Hopkins Hospital from 2013 to 2015 recording their Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), extent of resection, MGMT-methylation and IDH1 mutation status, and treatment records. We selected patients with MGMT-methylated GBM who received concurrent RT+TMZ without adjuvant TMZ for this study. Patients with a KPS < 70 or severe post-radiation complications were excluded. Results: Six patients met the selection criteria. They had a median age of 65 years, average KPS of 80, 2/6 had a gross total resection, and all were IDH1 wildtype. Their overall survival ranged from 17 to > 46 months. Conclusions: The overall survival of these patients who received no adjuvant TMZ is very similar to the median of 23 months reported in the literature for MGMT methylated patients who received adjuvant TMZ. This preliminary data suggests that a prospective study in MGMT methylated patients comparing concurrent RT+TMZ followed by either standard adjuvant TMZ or observation could be considered without placing patients in the experimental arm at excessive risk.[Table: see text]


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flóra John ◽  
Edit Bosnyák ◽  
Natasha L Robinette ◽  
Alit J Amit-Yousif ◽  
Geoffrey R Barger ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (13) ◽  
pp. 2144-2150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Moynihan ◽  
Andy R. Norman ◽  
Yolanda Barbachano ◽  
Louise Burchell ◽  
Robert Huddart ◽  
...  

Purpose To identify predictive factors of adherence to medical advice, specifically the likelihood of attendance to a recommended follow-up regimen in patients with newly diagnosed testicular cancer. Patients and Methods This was a prospective study measuring initially not only aspects of the doctor–patient interview, but also a range of demographic, psychological, social, and medical factors, and then recording attendance behavior on follow-up. All 209 new patients with testicular cancer referred between June 1992 and May 1995 were approached, and 184 men consented and completed questionnaires. The nonadherence end point (nonattender) was two failures to attend an outpatient appointment at least 1 month apart, despite a written reminder. Results Thirty-two participants (17%) were classified as nonattenders. No significant differences were found between attenders and nonattenders in the majority of psychosocial and medical variables that might have predicted nonadherence to medical advice. There was a highly significant association between nonattendance and a patient's perception of an unsatisfactory affective relationship with his clinician (P = .005; hazard ratio, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.4 to 6.6). Conclusion Patients who perceived an unsatisfactory affective relationship with their clinician that included an inability to trust the clinician and a perception that they were not being treated as “a person” were subsequently more likely to disregard medical advice regarding follow-up. Attention to the ways young men may wish to communicate with their clinicians is important, bearing in mind that they may not necessarily adhere to stereotypical images of masculine self-dependence.


Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 125 (19) ◽  
pp. 3347-3353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine I. Stewart ◽  
Beth Chasen ◽  
William Erwin ◽  
Nicole Fleming ◽  
Shannon N. Westin ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii38-iii38
Author(s):  
J Kelly ◽  
C Proescholdt

Abstract BACKGROUND High quality and value of recommended treatments is of specific importance in cancer care. ESMO, ASCO and NCCN have developed tools intended to help assessing the clinical value of cancer treatments in a standardised way, allowing for a comparative discussion. Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is a novel, device based cancer treatment, that was recently demonstrated to be effective in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). This new modality augments the treatments discussed with glioblastoma patients today. MATERIAL AND METHODS ESMO and ASCO frameworks each calculate a score for the clinical value of a cancer treatment, called Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) by ESMO and the Net Health Benefit (NHB) by ASCO. NCCN self reports “evidence blocks” which are assessed by clinician panels and were recently published for the first line treatment of newly diagnosed GBM with TTFields. We apply and compare the ESMO, ASCO and NCCN tools for TTFields treatment of newly diagnosed GBM. RESULTS The resulting ASCO NHB score for TTFields treatment of newly diagnosed GBM is 56. ESMO MCBS scores for TTFields in GBM are resulting in A/5, these being the highest achievable scores for this framework. All frameworks value the increase in overall survival by TTFields and the moderate toxicity profile. ESMO additionally values quality of life, while ASCO values palliation and treatment free intervals. NCCN’s specific focus is on the quality and consistency of the evidence. NCCN evidence blocks also contain an affordability score. CONCLUSION All three frameworks consider the clinical efficacy of a treatment and it’s toxicity profile in their clinical value assessment. Beyond that, their respective focus is on slightly different aspects and their definition of clinical value therefore varies in detail. However, all value scores suggest that TTFields treatment of newly diagnosed GBM provides a substantial clinical benefit. The high ESMO and ASCO scores are based on the significantly extended progression free and overall survival for TTFields treated patients, without adding systemic toxicities. The NCCN evidence blocks strongly support the NCCN category 1 recommendation for the use of TTFields in newly diagnosed GBM.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document