Prognostic factors among single primary gliosarcoma cases: A study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data from 1973-2013.

Bin Chen,Bin Liu,Chao Wu,Zhenyu Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2503
IF: 4.711
2019-01-01
Cancer Medicine
Abstract:BACKGROUND:Prognostic factors for single primary gliosarcoma (PGS) remain unknown. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of our study was to examine patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics as potential predictors of survival using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data (1973-2013). METHODS:The patients of single PGS were selected based on the exclusion criteria from SEER. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze all the data. RESULTS:Single PGS has an apparent popularity for the temporal lobe (35.2%, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.440, 95%CI = 0.251-0.770) and frontal lobe (20.9%, HR = 0.408, 95%CI = 0.231-0.720) which could achieve a better survival rate than cerebrum (P = .034). The mean age at diagnosis was 60.07 ± 14.161. The overall 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year survival was 55.40%, 29.58%, 10.01%, and 2.73%. Age at diagnosis was proved to be a significant predictor of overall survival (OS) (P < .001). There is no significant difference in race, marital status, or grade. Patients' tumor size which is located in 41-60 mm (P = .047, HR = 1.468, 95%CI = 1.004-2.147) and >60 mm (P= .003, HR = 1.899, 95%CI = 1.244-2.901) showed a higher risk of death. Surgery played a critical role in OS (P < .001). Radiation after surgery was another predictor of OS of PGS (P < .001). Among all the radiation methods, combination of beam with implants or isotopes (P = .000, HR = 0.491, 95%CI = 0.412-0.585) or radiation NOS (P = .027, HR = 0.362, 95%CI = 0.148-0.889) were more beneficial to patients. CONCLUSION:This study indicated that single PGS has a poor prognosis. Prognosis of single PGS would become poorer along with patients' age and tumor size (>40 mm). Surgery intervention and radiation therapy were beneficial factors.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?