Prognostic factors for survival in adult patients with grade II glial tumors

Abstract

Aim: To investigate survival results of patients with low grade gliomas (LGGs) and to evaluate the predictive role of clinico-pathologic prognostic factors on survival. Material and Methods: Between 2003 and 2014, the adult patients with Grade II glial tumors were evaluated retrospectively. Several variables were investigated to find prognostic factors related with the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).Results: This study involved in 124 patients with median 40 (range; 6-132) months follow up. The average OS for the all patients was 7.8 years. 2-, 5-and 10-year OS ratios were 91%, 73% and 55%, respectively. Patients with low pignatti risk score had a longer OS than high pignatti risk score (p=0.01). Patients with seizure had a better OS (p=0.03). Patients with biopsy/partial resection had a poorer OS (p=0.02). Patients with residue after initial surgery had a worse OS (p=0.03). If the patients had recurrence or progression, the patients had poorer OS (p=0.01). Tumor with malignant transformation (p=0.01) and glioblastoma subtype after second surgery (p=0.003) had a poorer OS. The Pignatti risk score and seizure were the independent prognostic factors for PFS. Conclusion:The extent of surgery and recurrence or progression of Grade II glioma were the independent prognostic factors for OS. The Pignatti risk score and seizure were the independent prognostic factors for PFS.

Prognostic Factors of Low-Grade Gliomas in Adults

“…Low-grade gliomas are most often found in males (55–60%), while our study showed the opposite [ 4 , 10 , 14 ]. Differences were observed in the pathogenesis and evolution of low-grade gliomas in terms of female and male sex, with some genes having a protective role for one category and a negative prognosis for the other.…”

“…Life expectancy is relatively good, with an average survival rate of 5.6 to 13.3 years [ 1 ]. A number of molecular and constitutional characteristics contribute to this rate: topography, topographic effects, tumor histology, patient age, type of treatment, tumor volume, and patient performance status [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Another aspect not to be neglected is the potential for malignant transformation of these tumors, which can vary between 25 and 72% of cases [ 6 ].…”