Comparative analysis of molecular and histological glioblastomas: insights into prognostic variance

Myunghwan Lee,Philipp Karschnia,Yae Won Park,Kaeum Choi,Kyunghwa Han,Seo Hee Choi,Hong In Yoon,Na-Young Shin,Sung Soo Ahn,Joerg-Christian Tonn,Jong Hee Chang,Se Hoon Kim,Seung-Koo Lee
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-024-04737-9
Abstract:Purpose: Whether molecular glioblastomas (GBMs) identify with a similar dismal prognosis as a "classical" histological GBM is controversial. This study aimed to compare the clinical, molecular, imaging, surgical factors, and prognosis between molecular GBMs and histological GBMs. Methods: Retrospective chart and imaging review was performed in 983 IDH-wildtype GBM patients (52 molecular GBMs and 931 histological GBMs) from a single institution between 2005 and 2023. Propensity score-matched analysis was additionally performed to adjust for differences in baseline variables between molecular GBMs and histological GBMs. Results: Molecular GBM patients were substantially younger (58.1 vs. 62.4, P = 0.014) with higher rate of TERTp mutation (84.6% vs. 50.3%, P < 0.001) compared with histological GBM patients. Imaging showed higher incidence of gliomatosis cerebri pattern (32.7% vs. 9.2%, P < 0.001) in molecular GBM compared with histological GBM, which resulted in lesser extent of resection (P < 0.001) in these patients. The survival was significantly better in molecular GBM compared to histological GBM (median OS 30.2 vs. 18.4 months, P = 0.001). The superior outcome was confirmed in propensity score analyses by matching histological GBM to molecular GBM (P < 0.001). Conclusion: There are distinct clinical, molecular, and imaging differences between molecular GBMs and histological GBMs. Our results suggest that molecular GBMs have a more favorable prognosis than histological GBMs.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?