对新诊断的深部大体积胶质母细胞瘤进行激光间质热疗评估:生存率和疗效分析。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Adham M Khalafallah, Khushi H Shah, Maxon V Knott, Chandler N Berke, Ashish H Shah, Ricardo J Komotar, Michael E Ivan
{"title":"对新诊断的深部大体积胶质母细胞瘤进行激光间质热疗评估:生存率和疗效分析。","authors":"Adham M Khalafallah, Khushi H Shah, Maxon V Knott, Chandler N Berke, Ashish H Shah, Ricardo J Komotar, Michael E Ivan","doi":"10.3171/2024.8.FOCUS24457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has emerged as an alternative for treating glioblastoma (GBM) in patients deemed unsuitable for resection due to deep-seated or eloquent location, age, or comorbidities. However, its safety and efficacy in large-volume, deep-seated, newly diagnosed GBM (nGBM) tumors remain insufficiently studied. Therefore, the authors aimed to assess the outcomes of LITT in the treatment of deep-seated, large-volume nGBM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of patients with nGBM who underwent LITT between February 2013 and August 2023 was conducted. Patients with deep-seated tumor volume ≥ 10 cm3 treated with LITT were compared to patients with deep-seated tumor volume < 10 cm3. Demographic, perioperative, and follow-up data were collected and compared among both groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed to evaluate the impact of various clinical and treatment-related factors on patient survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 33 patients in the study group (mean ± SD age 65.7 ± 10.2 years, 58% male) with mean tumor volume 36.0 ± 21.6 cm3 were compared to 23 controls (mean age 67.0 ± 12.5 years, 61% male) with mean tumor volume 5.2 ± 2.7 cm3. There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay (p = 0.494), temporary neurological deficits and edema within 30 days (p = 0.705 and p > 0.999, respectively), 30-day readmissions (p = 0.139), < 30-day complications (p = 0.918), complications between 30 days and 3 months (p = 0.903), and new motor and speech deficits within 3 months (p = 0.883 and p > 0.999, respectively) between the study and control groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis did not reveal any statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) between groups (p = 0.227). Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor volume did not significantly affect the hazard ratio for individuals undergoing LITT (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.83-3.29, p = 0.150).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This pilot study suggests that LITT is safe for treating patients with large-volume, deep-seated nGBM compared to those with small-volume tumor. Although there appears to be improved OS in patients with smaller lesions with greater EOA, significance was not achieved in this cohort.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating laser interstitial thermal therapy for newly diagnosed, deep-seated, large-volume glioblastoma: survival and outcome analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Adham M Khalafallah, Khushi H Shah, Maxon V Knott, Chandler N Berke, Ashish H Shah, Ricardo J Komotar, Michael E Ivan\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/2024.8.FOCUS24457\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has emerged as an alternative for treating glioblastoma (GBM) in patients deemed unsuitable for resection due to deep-seated or eloquent location, age, or comorbidities. However, its safety and efficacy in large-volume, deep-seated, newly diagnosed GBM (nGBM) tumors remain insufficiently studied. Therefore, the authors aimed to assess the outcomes of LITT in the treatment of deep-seated, large-volume nGBM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of patients with nGBM who underwent LITT between February 2013 and August 2023 was conducted. Patients with deep-seated tumor volume ≥ 10 cm3 treated with LITT were compared to patients with deep-seated tumor volume < 10 cm3. Demographic, perioperative, and follow-up data were collected and compared among both groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed to evaluate the impact of various clinical and treatment-related factors on patient survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 33 patients in the study group (mean ± SD age 65.7 ± 10.2 years, 58% male) with mean tumor volume 36.0 ± 21.6 cm3 were compared to 23 controls (mean age 67.0 ± 12.5 years, 61% male) with mean tumor volume 5.2 ± 2.7 cm3. There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay (p = 0.494), temporary neurological deficits and edema within 30 days (p = 0.705 and p > 0.999, respectively), 30-day readmissions (p = 0.139), < 30-day complications (p = 0.918), complications between 30 days and 3 months (p = 0.903), and new motor and speech deficits within 3 months (p = 0.883 and p > 0.999, respectively) between the study and control groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis did not reveal any statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) between groups (p = 0.227). Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor volume did not significantly affect the hazard ratio for individuals undergoing LITT (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.83-3.29, p = 0.150).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This pilot study suggests that LITT is safe for treating patients with large-volume, deep-seated nGBM compared to those with small-volume tumor. Although there appears to be improved OS in patients with smaller lesions with greater EOA, significance was not achieved in this cohort.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.8.FOCUS24457\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.8.FOCUS24457","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:激光间质热疗(LITT)已成为治疗胶质母细胞瘤(GBM)的一种替代疗法,可用于治疗因位置深部或有组织、年龄或合并症而不适合切除的患者。然而,对于大体积、深部、新诊断的胶质母细胞瘤(nGBM)肿瘤,其安全性和疗效仍未得到充分研究。因此,作者旨在评估 LITT 治疗深部大体积 nGBM 的效果:作者对 2013 年 2 月至 2023 年 8 月间接受 LITT 的 nGBM 患者进行了回顾性分析。将接受 LITT 治疗的深部肿瘤体积≥ 10 cm3 的患者与深部肿瘤体积< 10 cm3 的患者进行比较。收集两组患者的人口统计学、围手术期和随访数据并进行比较。通过卡普兰-梅耶生存分析和考克斯比例危险回归评估各种临床和治疗相关因素对患者生存的影响:研究组共有 33 名患者(平均年龄为 65.7±10.2 岁,男性占 58%),平均肿瘤体积为 36.0±21.6 立方厘米;对照组共有 23 名患者(平均年龄为 67.0±12.5 岁,男性占 61%),平均肿瘤体积为 5.2±2.7 立方厘米。研究组和对照组在住院时间(p = 0.494)、30 天内暂时性神经功能缺损和水肿(p = 0.705 和 p > 0.999)、30 天内再入院(p = 0.139)、< 30 天并发症(p = 0.918)、30 天至 3 个月并发症(p = 0.903)以及 3 个月内新出现的运动和语言障碍(p = 0.883 和 p > 0.999)方面均无明显差异。卡普兰-梅耶尔分析显示,研究组与对照组的总生存期(OS)差异无统计学意义(p = 0.227)。多变量分析表明,肿瘤体积对接受LITT治疗者的危险比没有明显影响(HR 1.16,95% CI 0.83-3.29,p = 0.150):这项试验性研究表明,与体积小的肿瘤患者相比,LITT治疗体积大、位置深的nGBM患者是安全的。虽然病灶较小、EOA较大的患者的OS似乎有所改善,但在这组患者中并未达到显著性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating laser interstitial thermal therapy for newly diagnosed, deep-seated, large-volume glioblastoma: survival and outcome analysis.

Objective: Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has emerged as an alternative for treating glioblastoma (GBM) in patients deemed unsuitable for resection due to deep-seated or eloquent location, age, or comorbidities. However, its safety and efficacy in large-volume, deep-seated, newly diagnosed GBM (nGBM) tumors remain insufficiently studied. Therefore, the authors aimed to assess the outcomes of LITT in the treatment of deep-seated, large-volume nGBM.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients with nGBM who underwent LITT between February 2013 and August 2023 was conducted. Patients with deep-seated tumor volume ≥ 10 cm3 treated with LITT were compared to patients with deep-seated tumor volume < 10 cm3. Demographic, perioperative, and follow-up data were collected and compared among both groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed to evaluate the impact of various clinical and treatment-related factors on patient survival.

Results: A total of 33 patients in the study group (mean ± SD age 65.7 ± 10.2 years, 58% male) with mean tumor volume 36.0 ± 21.6 cm3 were compared to 23 controls (mean age 67.0 ± 12.5 years, 61% male) with mean tumor volume 5.2 ± 2.7 cm3. There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay (p = 0.494), temporary neurological deficits and edema within 30 days (p = 0.705 and p > 0.999, respectively), 30-day readmissions (p = 0.139), < 30-day complications (p = 0.918), complications between 30 days and 3 months (p = 0.903), and new motor and speech deficits within 3 months (p = 0.883 and p > 0.999, respectively) between the study and control groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis did not reveal any statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) between groups (p = 0.227). Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor volume did not significantly affect the hazard ratio for individuals undergoing LITT (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.83-3.29, p = 0.150).

Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that LITT is safe for treating patients with large-volume, deep-seated nGBM compared to those with small-volume tumor. Although there appears to be improved OS in patients with smaller lesions with greater EOA, significance was not achieved in this cohort.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信