Page 73 - Read Online
P. 73

Page 2 of 8          Bellu et al. J Cancer Metastasis Treat 2021;7:29  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-4722.2021.89

               disease. For all PT, PFS and OS were 19.1 and 30.7 months, respectively. For ECOG PS 0-1 and ≥ 2, PFS was 34.6
               months vs. 3.4 months (P < 0.0001) and OS was 42 months vs. 8.9 months (P < 0.0001), respectively. Methylated
               MGMT was associated with longer PFS (41.6 months vs. 8.9 months, P = 0.05) and OS (52.7 months vs. 14.6
               months, P = 0.009); PFS for IDH1 mutation and IDH wild-type was 52.7 months vs. 8.9 months (P = 0.006) and OS
               was 52.7 months vs. 41.7 months (P = 0.02), respectively. No significant difference was detected as regards
               treatments. With regard to histological subtype, OS was 42.0 months vs. 52.7 months (P = 0.8) and PFS was 41.6
               months vs. 28.6 months (P = 0.7) for astrocytoma vs. oligodendroglioma, respectively. PT with treatment response
               showed a longer OS. PT receiving second-line treatment had a longer OS of 30.7 months vs. 6.5 months (P = 0.04).

               Conclusion: ECOG PS, MGMT methylation, and IDH1 mutational status seem to have an important prognostic
               significance, while the type of treatment does not seem to affect survival. Treatment response could be a surrogate
               marker for survival.

               Keywords: Low-grade gliomas, gliomatosis cerebri, temozolomide, IDH, radiotherapy



               INTRODUCTION
               According to the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of tumors of the Central Nervous
               System, gliomatosis cerebri is no longer a distinct pathological entity, being designated as a pattern of
               diffuse and extensive growth of glioma cells. It includes astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors, involving
                                                                                                  [1]
               three or more cerebral lobes, usually bilateral, with a frequent extension to infratentorial structures .
               However, GC remains a complicated entity to treat, with great heterogeneity in clinical features and
               outcome. Symptoms and radiological appearance are non-specific, and, thus, it can be confused with other
               neurological diseases ; on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), GC usually shows diffuse infiltration
                                  [2]
               predominantly of white matter, with T2-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR)
               hyperintensity.


               With regard to the treatment of GC, optimal management is still unclear. Surgery is used for focal biopsy
               and the role of radiotherapy and chemotherapy is discordant.


               The aim of our paper is to describe our real-life experience in GC by retrospective analysis and to
               investigate the main prognostic factors and therapeutic management.

               METHODS
               We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients diagnosed with GC who visited our oncological center,
               the Veneto Institute of Oncology-IRCCS, in Padua between January 2006 and December 2017. Each patient
               had to meet the following criteria: age ≥ 18 years, MRI-T2 or FLAIR sequences showing the interest of at
               least three cerebral lobes, and with the aspect of diffuse glioma with no contrast enhancement. Histological
               diagnoses were based on the 2009 or 2016 WHO classification, depending on the year in which the
               intervention was performed.


               Demographic data, age at diagnosis, biopsy execution, histological diagnosis, O6-methylguanin-DNA-
               methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation, IDH1-2 mutation, type of therapy, radiological aspects,
               and response and patient outcomes were recorded. In particular, the MGMT promoter methylation status
               was investigated by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or pyrosequencing and the IDH1-2 mutation status
               was performed by immunohistochemistry and PCR; radiological response was retrospectively evaluated by
   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78