Dokument: Einfluss der unterschiedlichen Second-line-Therapien bei rezidivierten Glioblastom Patienten - eine retrospektive, monozentrische Studie
| Titel: | Einfluss der unterschiedlichen Second-line-Therapien bei rezidivierten Glioblastom Patienten - eine retrospektive, monozentrische Studie | |||||||
| URL für Lesezeichen: | https://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=74445 | |||||||
| URN (NBN): | urn:nbn:de:hbz:061-20260917-135608-7 | |||||||
| Kollektion: | Dissertationen | |||||||
| Sprache: | Deutsch | |||||||
| Dokumententyp: | Wissenschaftliche Abschlussarbeiten » Dissertation | |||||||
| Medientyp: | Text | |||||||
| Autor: | Fischer, Hannah [Autor] | |||||||
| Dateien: |
| |||||||
| Beitragende: | Prof. Dr. med. Rapp, Marion [Gutachter] PD Dr. med. Brunn, Anna Gertrud [Gutachter] | |||||||
| Stichwörter: | Glioblastom | |||||||
| Dokumententyp (erweitert): | Dissertation | |||||||
| Dewey Dezimal-Klassifikation: | 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften » 610 Medizin und Gesundheit | |||||||
| Beschreibungen: | Das Glioblastom hat noch immer eine infauste Prognose. Dennoch gibt es Studien, welche einen Überlebensvorteil für die Patienten nach der Erstdiagnose nachweisen und so den Rahmen der aktuellen Goldstandard-Therapie setzen. Nach der Diagnose eines Tumorrezidivs ist keine Standardtherapie festgelegt. Das weitere Vorgehen wird individuell mit dem Patienten besprochen. Dieses ist variabel und abhängig von den bisherigen Vortherapien, der Tumorlokalisation und dem klinischen Zustand des Patienten. Aufgrund einer medianen Überlebensdauer von sechs bis neun Monaten nach der Diagnose des Rezidivs muss hier individuell abgewogen werden zwischen einer möglichen Lebenszeitverlängerung und einer möglichen Einschränkung der Lebensqualität. Die aktuelle Datenlage bezüglich der Beeinflussung der Lebensqualität ist weiterhin marginal.
Im Rahmen dieser retrospektiven Studie wurde untersucht, welche Therapie bei Glioblastom-Rezidiven die größten Chancen für die Patienten bietet. Es wurden 350 Patienten mit der Diagnose des ersten Glioblastom-Rezidivs in die Studie eingeschlossen. Als Outcome-Parameter wurden das Gesamtüberleben und das progressionsfreie Intervall ab der Diagnose des ersten Rezidivs gewählt. Zudem wurde der klinische Status anhand des Karnofsky Performance Status erfasst. Dabei konnte gezeigt werden, dass eine invasive Therapie einen positiven Einfluss auf das Gesamtüberleben ab dem Datum der Diagnosestellung des ersten Rezidivs hat. Entgegen der Erwartung, dass eine intensive Therapie eine Verschlechterung des klinischen Zustandes bedeutet, demonstrieren die Daten, dass auch umfassende therapeutische Maßnahmen einen signifikanten Vorteil im klinischen Status erwirken können. Zudem konnte in der Studie gezeigt werden, dass insbesondere ein hohes Resektionsausmaß einen signifikanten Einfluss auf das Überleben des Patienten hat. Aus den Ergebnissen lässt sich ableiten, dass eine intensive und invasive Therapie bei entsprechendem Patientenwillen angestrebt werden sollte, da bei einem ausreichend gutem klinischen Status, nicht zwingend mit einer Verschlechterung gerechnet werden muss. Glioblastoma still has an infaust prognosis. Nevertheless, there are studies that demonstrate a survival advantage for patients after the initial diagnosis. This set the framework of the current standard therapy. After the diagnosis of tumor recurrence, no standard therapy is established. The further procedure is discussed individually with the patient, is variable and depends on the previous therapies, the tumor location and the clinical condition of the patient. Due to a median survival period of about six to nine months after diagnosis of the recurrence, it must be weighed up individually between possible prolongation of life and possible restriction of quality of life. The current data situation regarding the influence on quality of life is still marginal. This retrospective study investigated which therapy offers the greatest opportunities for patients in glioblastoma recurrence. 350 patients with the diagnosis of the first glioblastoma recurrence were included in the study. Overall survival and the progression-free interval from the diagnosis of the first recurrence were chosen as outcome parameters. In addition, the clinical status was recorded based on the Karnofsky performance status. It was shown that invasive therapy has a positive influence on overall survival from the date of diagnosis. Contrary to the expectation that intensive therapy means a deterioration of the clinical condition, our data demonstrate that even comprehensive therapeutic measures can achieve a significant advantage in clinical status. In addition, our study showed that a high degree of resection has a significant influence on the survival of the patient. From our results, it can be deduced that intensive and invasive therapy should be aimed at with the appropriate patient will, since a sufficiently good clinical status does not necessarily have to be expected to worsen. | |||||||
| Quelle: | 1. Jährliche Todesfälle aufgrund von Krebs in Deutschland in den Jahren 2000 bis 2022 [Graph]. 2024 26.02.2024]; Available from: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/172573/umfrage/krebstote-in-deutschland/.
2. Krex, D. and G. Schackert, Glioblastom. Gliomchirurgie. 2018, Berlin: Matthias Simon. 3. Krebs in Deutschland für 2019/2020. 2023, Robert Koch-Institut, Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e.V.: Berlin. p. 114-117. 4. Stupp, R., et al., Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med, 2005. 352(10): p. 987-96. 5. Ostrom, Q.T., et al., CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2013-2017. Neuro Oncol, 2020. 22(12 Suppl 2): p. iv1-iv96. 6. Holland, E.C., Glioblastoma multiforme: the terminator. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2000. 97(12): p. 6242-4. 7. Maher, E.A., et al., Malignant glioma: genetics and biology of a grave matter. Genes Dev, 2001. 15(11): p. 1311-33. 8. Weller, M., et al., Die WHO-Klassifikation der Tumoren des zentralen Nervensystems 2021. Der Onkologe, 2022. 28(2): p. 155-163. 9. Kleihues, P. and H. Ohgaki, Phenotype vs genotype in the evolution of astrocytic brain tumors. Toxicol Pathol, 2000. 28(1): p. 164-70. 10. Hanif, F., et al., Glioblastoma Multiforme: A Review of its Epidemiology and Pathogenesis through Clinical Presentation and Treatment. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev., 2017. 18: p. 3-9. 11. Bondy, M.L., et al., Brain tumor epidemiology: consensus from the Brain Tumor Epidemiology Consortium. Cancer, 2008. 113(7 Suppl): p. 1953-68. 12. Pasquier, B., et al., Extraneural metastases of astrocytomas and glioblastomas clinicopathological study of two cases and review of literature. Cancer, 1980. 45(1): p. 112-125. 13. Omuro, A. and L.M. DeAngelis, Glioblastoma and Other Malignant Gliomas: A Clinical Review. JAMA, 2013. 310(17): p. 1842-1850. 14. Park, Y.W., et al., Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma from radiation necrosis using diffusion radiomics with machine learning model development and external validation. Sci Rep, 2021. 11(1): p. 2913. 15. Abd-Elghany, A.A., et al., Radiological characteristics of glioblastoma multiforme using CT and MRI examination. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, 2019. 12(1): p. 289-293. 16. Wu, Z., et al., Advances in magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents for glioblastoma-targeting theranostics. Regen Biomater, 2021. 8(6): p. rbab062. 17. Linn, J., M. Wiesmann, and H. Brückmann, Atlas Klinische Neuroradiologie des Gehirns. 2011, Springer-Verlag. 18. Forseen, S.E., B.C. Gilbert, and R.E. Figueroa, Chapter 2 - Imaging of glioblastoma recurrence, in New Targeting in the Reversal of Resistant Glioblastomas, A.S. Arbab, Editor. 2021, Academic Press. p. 9-39. 19. Drake, L.R., A.T. Hillmer, and Z. Cai, Approaches to PET Imaging of Glioblastoma. Molecules, 2020. 25(3). 20. Ishiwata, K., et al., Re-evaluation of amino acid PET studies: can the protein synthesis rates in brain and tumor tissues be measured in vivo? J Nucl Med, 1993. 34(11): p. 1936-43. 21. Preusser, M., C. Haberler, and J.A. Hainfellner, Malignant glioma: Neuropathology and Neurobiology. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift, 2006. 156(11): p. 332-337. 22. Brat, D.J., et al., cIMPACT-NOW update 3: recommended diagnostic criteria for "Diffuse astrocytic glioma, IDH-wildtype, with molecular features of glioblastoma, WHO grade IV". Acta Neuropathol, 2018. 136(5): p. 805-810. 23. Louis, D.N., et al., The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol, 2016. 131(6): p. 803-20. 24. Louis, D.N., et al., The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol, 2021. 23(8): p. 1231-1251. 25. Weller, M., et al., Molecular predictors of progression-free and overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a prospective translational study of the German Glioma Network. J Clin Oncol, 2009. 27(34): p. 5743-50. 26. Kingsbury, J.M., et al., Cancer-associated isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations induce mitochondrial DNA instability. Hum Mol Genet, 2016. 25(16): p. 3524-3538. 27. Han, S., et al., IDH mutation in glioma: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets. Br J Cancer, 2020. 122(11): p. 1580-1589. 28. Xu, X., et al., Structures of human cytosolic NADP-dependent isocitrate dehydrogenase reveal a novel self-regulatory mechanism of activity. J Biol Chem, 2004. 279(32): p. 33946-57. 29. Parsons, D.W., et al., An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science, 2008. 321(5897): p. 1807-12. 30. Ohgaki, H. and P. Kleihues, The definition of primary and secondary glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res, 2013. 19(4): p. 764-72. 31. Szylberg, M., et al., MGMT Promoter Methylation as a Prognostic Factor in Primary Glioblastoma: A Single-Institution Observational Study. Biomedicines, 2022. 10(8). 32. Esteller, M., et al., Inactivation of the DNA-repair gene MGMT and the clinical response of gliomas to alkylating agents. N Engl J Med, 2000. 343(19): p. 1350-4. 33. Lukas, R.V., et al., Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma: A Review on Clinical Management. Oncology (Williston Park), 2019. 33(3): p. 91-100. 34. Weller, M., et al., EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diffuse gliomas of adulthood. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2021. 18(3): p. 170-186. 35. Kostaras, X., et al., Use of dexamethasone in patients with high-grade glioma: a clinical practice guideline. Curr Oncol, 2014. 21(3): p. e493-503. 36. Hemminger, L.E., et al., Palliative and end-of-life care in glioblastoma: defining and measuring opportunities to improve care. Neurooncol Pract, 2017. 4(3): p. 182-188. 37. Lara-Velazquez, M., et al., Advances in Brain Tumor Surgery for Glioblastoma in Adults. Brain Sci, 2017. 7(12). 38. Lacroix, M., et al., A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. J Neurosurg, 2001. 95(2): p. 190-8. 39. Iacob, G. and E.B. Dinca, Current data and strategy in glioblastoma multiforme. J Med Life, 2009. 2(4): p. 386-93. 40. Robin, A.M., I. Lee, and S.N. Kalkanis, Reoperation for Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2017. 28(3): p. 407-428. 41. Sarnthein, J., et al., [Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring improves outcome in neurosurgery]. Praxis (Bern 1994), 2012. 101(2): p. 99-105. 42. Szelényi, A., et al., Intraoperative electrical stimulation in awake craniotomy: methodological aspects of current practice. Neurosurg Focus, 2010. 28(2): p. E7. 43. Sales, A.H.A., et al., Surgical Treatment of Glioblastoma: State-of-the-Art and Future Trends. J Clin Med, 2022. 11(18). 44. Stummer, W., et al., Fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid for resection of malignant glioma: a randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial. Lancet Oncol, 2006. 7(5): p. 392-401. 45. Mahboob, S., et al., Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Resection of Gliomas: A Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature. World Neurosurg, 2016. 92: p. 255-263. 46. Zhang, J.J.Y., et al., Awake craniotomy for resection of supratentorial glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurooncol Adv, 2020. 2(1): p. vdaa111. 47. Roa, W., et al., Abbreviated course of radiation therapy in older patients with glioblastoma multiforme: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol, 2004. 22(9): p. 1583-8. 48. Minniti, G., et al., Current status and recent advances in reirradiation of glioblastoma. Radiat Oncol, 2021. 16(1): p. 36. 49. Barisano, G., et al., Complications of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery in the Brain and Spine. Neurographics (2011), 2018. 8(3): p. 167-187. 50. Feng, A., et al., Distinguishing Tumor Recurrence From Radiation Necrosis in Treated Glioblastoma Using Multiparametric MRI. Academic Radiology, 2022. 29(9): p. 1320-1331. 51. Ali, F.S., et al., Cerebral Radiation Necrosis: Incidence, Pathogenesis, Diagnostic Challenges, and Future Opportunities. Current Oncology Reports, 2019. 21(8). 52. Taal, W., et al., Dose dense 1 week on/1 week off temozolomide in recurrent glioma: a retrospective study. J Neurooncol, 2012. 108(1): p. 195-200. 53. Perry, J.R., et al., Short-Course Radiation plus Temozolomide in Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma. N Engl J Med, 2017. 376(11): p. 1027-1037. 54. Herrlinger, U., et al., Lomustine-temozolomide combination therapy versus standard temozolomide therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (CeTeG/NOA-09): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet, 2019. 393(10172): p. 678-688. 55. Brandes, A.A., et al., Nitrosoureas in the Management of Malignant Gliomas. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep, 2016. 16(2): p. 13. 56. Xiao, Z.Z., et al., Carmustine as a Supplementary Therapeutic Option for Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Neurol, 2020. 11: p. 1036. 57. Urbschat, S., et al., Importance of biomarkers in glioblastomas patients receiving local BCNU wafer chemotherapy. Mol Cytogenet, 2017. 10: p. 16. 58. Scaringi, C., et al., Temozolomide-related hematologic toxicity. Onkologie, 2013. 36(7-8): p. 444-9. 59. Lamszus, K., P. Kunkel, and M. Westphal, Invasion as limitation to anti-angiogenic glioma therapy. Acta Neurochir Suppl, 2003. 88: p. 169-77. 60. Pope, W.B., et al., MRI in patients with high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. Neurology, 2006. 66(8): p. 1258-60. 61. Levin, V.A., et al., Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab therapy for radiation necrosis of the central nervous system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2011. 79(5): p. 1487-95. 62. Carvalho, B.F., et al., Second-Line Chemotherapy in Recurrent Glioblastoma: A 2-Cohort Study. Oncol Res Treat, 2015. 38(7-8): p. 348-54. 63. Davies, A.M., U. Weinberg, and Y. Palti, Tumor treating fields: a new frontier in cancer therapy. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2013. 1291: p. 86-95. 64. Stupp, R., et al., NovoTTF-100A versus physician's choice chemotherapy in recurrent glioblastoma: a randomised phase III trial of a novel treatment modality. Eur J Cancer, 2012. 48(14): p. 2192-202. 65. Stupp, R., et al., Effect of Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance Temozolomide Alone on Survival in Patients With Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama, 2017. 318(23): p. 2306-2316. 66. Moser, J.C., et al., The Mechanisms of Action of Tumor Treating Fields. Cancer Res, 2022. 82(20): p. 3650-3658. 67. Wu, A., et al., Palliative Care Service Utilization and Advance Care Planning for Adult Glioblastoma Patients: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel), 2021. 13(12). 68. Fritz, L., et al., Advance Care Planning in Glioblastoma Patients. Cancers (Basel), 2016. 8(11). 69. Stupp, R., et al., High-grade glioma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol, 2014. 25 Suppl 3: p. iii93-101. 70. Wen, P.Y., et al., Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol, 2010. 28(11): p. 1963-72. 71. Stummer, W., et al., Extent of resection and survival in glioblastoma multiforme: identification of and adjustment for bias. Neurosurgery, 2008. 62(3): p. 564-76; discussion 564-76. 72. Le Fèvre, C., et al., Ellipsoid calculations versus manual tumor delineations for glioblastoma tumor volume evaluation. Sci Rep, 2022. 12(1): p. 10502. 73. Radbruch, A. and M. Bendszus, RANO-Kriterien bei höhergradigen hirneigenen Tumoren. Radiologie up2date, 2012. 12(03): p. 267-279. 74. la Fougère, C., et al., Molecular imaging of gliomas with PET: opportunities and limitations. Neuro Oncol, 2011. 13(8): p. 806-19. 75. Schaafsma, J. and D. Osoba, The Karnofsky performance status scale re-examined: a cross-validation with the EORTC-C30. Quality of Life Research, 1994. 3(6): p. 413-424. 76. Mackworth, N., P. Fobair, and M.D. Prados, Quality of life self-reports from 200 brain tumor patients: comparisons with Karnofsky performance scores. J Neurooncol, 1992. 14(3): p. 243-53. 77. Yates, J.W., B. Chalmer, and F.P. McKegney, Evaluation of patients with advanced cancer using the Karnofsky performance status. Cancer, 1980. 45(8): p. 2220-4. 78. Kanderi, T. and V. Gupta, Glioblastoma Multiforme. StatPearls, 2022. 79. Wen, P.Y., et al., Glioblastoma in adults: a Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and European Society of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) consensus review on current management and future directions. Neuro Oncol, 2020. 22(8): p. 1073-1113. 80. Zwiener, I., M. Blettner, and G. Hommel. Überlebenszeitanalyse Teil 15 der Serie zur Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen. Available from: https://eliph.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/neuro/265/glioblastom-who-grad-iv. 81. Ziegler, A., S. Lange, and R. Bender, Überlebenszeitanalyse: Die Cox-Regression. - Artikel Nr. 16 der Statistik-Serie in der DMW -, 2004. 129(S 3): p. T1-T3. 82. Schneider, A., G. Hommel, and M. Blettner, Lineare Regressionsanalyse. Dtsch Arztebl International, 2010. 107(44): p. 776-82. 83. Schneider, H., Nachweis und Behandlung von Multikollinearität, in Methodik der empirischen Forschung, S. Albers, et al., Editors. 2009, Gabler Verlag: Wiesbaden. p. 221-236. 84. Weiß, C., Regressionsanalysen, in Basiswissen Medizinische Statistik. 2019, Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg. p. 185-198. 85. Rapp, M., et al., Evaluation of Clinical Outcome and Survival Under Application of Various Therapies at First Recurrence in Patients with Glioblastoma. J Clin Med, 2025. 14(18). 86. Voisin, M.R., et al., Surgery for Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme: A Retrospective Case Control Study. World Neurosurg, 2022. 166: p. e624-e631. 87. Kaul, D., et al., Reirradiation of High-Grade Gliomas: A Retrospective Analysis of 198 Patients Based on the Charité Data Set. Adv Radiat Oncol, 2020. 5(5): p. 959-964. 88. Barbagallo, G.M.V., et al., Recurrent high-grade glioma surgery: a multimodal intraoperative protocol to safely increase extent of tumor resection and analysis of its impact on patient outcome. Neurosurg Focus, 2021. 50(1): p. E20. 89. Suchorska, B., et al., Complete resection of contrast-enhancing tumor volume is associated with improved survival in recurrent glioblastoma-results from the DIRECTOR trial. Neuro Oncol, 2016. 18(4): p. 549-56. 90. Cui, M., et al., Combined use of multimodal techniques for the resection of glioblastoma involving corpus callosum. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2022. 164(3): p. 689-702. 91. Lamborn, K.R., S.M. Chang, and M.D. Prados, Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis. Neuro Oncol, 2004. 6(3): p. 227-35. 92. Ringel, F., et al., Clinical benefit from resection of recurrent glioblastomas: results of a multicenter study including 503 patients with recurrent glioblastomas undergoing surgical resection. Neuro Oncol, 2016. 18(1): p. 96-104. 93. Gerritsen, J.K.W., et al., Effect of awake craniotomy in glioblastoma in eloquent areas (GLIOMAP): a propensity score-matched analysis of an international, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol, 2022. 23(6): p. 802-817. 94. Krebs in Deutschland für 2015/2016. 2019, Robert Koch-Institut, Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e.V.: Berlin. p. 114-117. 95. Clavreul, A., et al., What effects does awake craniotomy have on functional and survival outcomes for glioblastoma patients? J Neurooncol, 2021. 151(2): p. 113-121. 96. Archavlis, E., et al., Survival analysis of HDR brachytherapy versus reoperation versus temozolomide alone: a retrospective cohort analysis of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. BMJ Open, 2013. 3(3). 97. De Bonis, P., et al., The impact of repeated surgery and adjuvant therapy on survival for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2013. 115(7): p. 883-6. 98. Dejonckheere, C.S., et al., Reirradiation of recurrent glioblastoma: Results from a single-center retrospective cohort study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol, 2025. 55: p. 101029. 99. Palmer, J.D., et al., Re-resection for recurrent high-grade glioma in the setting of re-irradiation: more is not always better. J Neurooncol, 2015. 124(2): p. 215-21. 100. She, L., et al., A retrospective analysis of survival prognostic factors and risk stratification in recurrent glioblastoma. Ann Med, 2025. 57(1): p. 2533435. 101. Zeyen, T., et al., Second-line temozolomide in first recurrent MGMT-methylated glioblastoma after lomustine/temozolomide: Efficacy and safety. Neurooncol Adv, 2025. 7(1): p. vdaf084. 102. Karschnia, P., et al., Prognostic evaluation of re-resection for recurrent glioblastoma using the novel RANO classification for extent of resection: A report of the RANO resect group. Neuro Oncol, 2023. 25(9): p. 1672-1685. 103. Sacko, O., et al., The Impact of Surgery on the Survival of Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma. Asian J Neurosurg, 2021. 16(1): p. 1-7. 104. Yang, K., et al., Reoperation in adult patients with recurrent glioblastoma: A matched cohort analysis. Neurooncol Adv, 2022. 4(1): p. vdac115. 105. Franceschi, E., et al., Salvage temozolomide for prior temozolomide responders. Cancer, 2005. 104(11): p. 2473-6. 106. Kong, D.S., et al., A pilot study of metronomic temozolomide treatment in patients with recurrent temozolomide-refractory glioblastoma. Oncol Rep, 2006. 16(5): p. 1117-21. 107. Patel, M., et al., Repeat resection in recurrent glioblastoma (3rGBM) Trial: A randomized care trial. Neurochirurgie, 2022. 68(3): p. 262-266. 108. Staub-Bartelt, F., et al., Establishment of Different Intraoperative Monitoring and Mapping Techniques and Their Impact on Survival, Extent of Resection, and Clinical Outcome in Patients with High-Grade Gliomas—A Series of 631 Patients in 14 Years. Cancers, 2024. 16(5): p. 926. 109. Gerritsen, J.K.W., et al., Awake craniotomy versus craniotomy under general anesthesia without surgery adjuncts for supratentorial glioblastoma in eloquent areas: a retrospective matched case-control study. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2019. 161(2): p. 307-315. 110. Subach, B.R., et al., Morbidity and survival after 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea wafer implantation for recurrent glioblastoma: a retrospective case-matched cohort series. Neurosurgery, 1999. 45(1): p. 17-22; discussion 22-3. 111. Samis Zella, M.A., et al., Evaluation of post-operative complications associated with repeat resection and BCNU wafer implantation in recurrent glioblastoma. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2014. 156(2): p. 313-23. 112. Athanassiou, H., et al., Randomized Phase II Study of Temozolomide and Radiotherapy Compared With Radiotherapy Alone in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2005. 23(10): p. 2372-2377. 113. Inggas, M.A.M., et al., The role of temozolomide as adjuvant therapy in glioblastoma management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer, 2025. 25(1): p. 399. 114. Scholtyssek, F., et al., Reirradiation in progressive high-grade gliomas: outcome, role of concurrent chemotherapy, prognostic factors and validation of a new prognostic score with an independent patient cohort. Radiat Oncol, 2013. 8: p. 161. 115. Marwah, R., et al., Reirradiation versus systemic therapy versus combination therapy for recurrent high-grade glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and toxicity. J Neurooncol, 2023. 164(3): p. 505-524. 116. Hammed, A., et al., Efficacy and safety of combining re-irradiation with bevacizumab compared to bevacizumab alone in the management of recurrent high-grade gliomas: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ther Adv Neurol Disord, 2025. 18: p. 17562864251343574. 117. Demogeot, N., et al., Impact of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy on activity of daily living and performance status in progressive/recurrent glioblastoma: a retrospective study. Radiation Oncology, 2022. 17(1): p. 201. 118. Karschnia, P., et al., Prognostic validation of a new classification system for extent of resection in glioblastoma: A report of the RANO resect group. Neuro Oncol, 2023. 25(5): p. 940-954. 119. Basaran, A.E., et al., Extent of reoperation predicts survival in recurrent IDH-wildtype glioblastoma based on institutional data and individual patient data meta analysis. Discov Oncol, 2025. 16(1): p. 2099. 120. Metellus, P., et al., Prognostic impact of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase silencing in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme who undergo surgery and carmustine wafer implantation: a prospective patient cohort. Cancer, 2009. 115(20): p. 4783-94. | |||||||
| Lizenz: |  Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz | |||||||
| Fachbereich / Einrichtung: | Medizinische Fakultät | |||||||
| Dokument erstellt am: | 17.09.2026 | |||||||
| Dateien geändert am: | 17.09.2026 | |||||||
| Promotionsantrag am: | 12.04.2026 | |||||||
| Datum der Promotion: | 10.09.2026 |
