Cited by 902Glioma Diagnosis and TreatmentCancer survivorship and careOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment

Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Recurrent Glioma Patients Enrolled Onto Phase II Clinical Trials

Wong, Eric T., Hess, Kenneth R., Gleason, Mary Jo, Jaeckle, Kurt A., Kyritsis, Athanassios P., Prados, Michael D., Levin, Victor A., Yung, W.K. Alfred·1999·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine aggregate outcomes and prognostic covariates in patients with recurrent glioma enrolled onto phase II chemotherapy trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from eight consecutive phase II trials included 225 with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and 150 with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma (AA). Their median age was 45 years (range, 15 to 82 years) and their median Karnofsky performance score was 80 (range, 60 to 100). Prognostic covariates were analyzed with respect to tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) by multivariate logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 34 (9%) had complete or partial response, whereas 80 (21%) were alive and progression-free at 6 months (APF6). The median PFS was 10 weeks and median OS was 30 weeks. Histology was a robust prognostic factor across all outcomes. GBM patients had significantly poorer outcomes than AA patients. The APF6 proportion was 15% for GBM and 31% for AA, whereas the median PFS was 9 weeks for GBM and 13 weeks for AA. Results were also significantly poorer for patients with more than two prior surgeries or chemotherapy regimens. CONCLUSION: Histology is a dominant factor in determining outcome in patients with recurrent glioma enrolled onto phase II trials. Future trials should be designed with separate histology strata.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.1999.17.8.2572

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, E. T., Hess, K. R., Gleason, M. J., Jaeckle, K. A., Kyritsis, A. P., Prados, M. D., Levin, V. A., & Yung, W. K. A.
Affiliations
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1999-08
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
2572-2572
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1858161324
Cited by
902
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 67
FWCI
7.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r01ca055621-01, 5u01ca062431-04)
  • National Cancer Institute (U01CA062412, CA62431, CA62412, CA55621)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
recurrent glioma, glioblastoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, prognostic factors, histology, progression-free survival, overall survival, tumor response, prior chemotherapy, prior surgery, trial design
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Astrocytoma, Brain Neoplasms, Glioblastoma, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Probability, Prognosis, Logistic Models, Proportional Hazards Models, Salvage Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Karnofsky Performance Status

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review