Analyzing the role of reoperation in recurrent glioblastoma: a 15-year retrospective study in a single institution

Abstract

BackgroundMultiple treatment options at glioblastoma progression exist, including reintervention, reirradiation, additional systemic therapy, and novel strategies. No alternative has been proven to be superior in terms of postprogression survival (PPS). A second surgery has shown conflicting evidence in the literature regarding its prognostic impact, possibly affected by selection bias, and might benefit a sparse subset of patients with recurrent glioblastoma. The present study aims to determine the prognostic influence of salvage procedures in a cohort of patients treated in the same institution over 15 years.MethodsThree hundred and fifty patients with confirmed primary glioblastoma diagnosed and treated between 2005 and 2019 were selected. To examine the role of reoperation, we intended to create comparable groups, previously excluding all diagnostic biopsies and patients who were not actively treated after the first surgery or at disease progression. Uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were employed, considering reintervention as a time-fixed or time-dependent covariate. The endpoints of the study were overall survival (OS) and PPS.ResultsAt progression, 33 patients received a second surgery and 84 were treated with chemotherapy only. Clinical variables were similar among groups. OS, but not PPS, was superior in the reintervention group. Treatment modality had no impact in our multivariate Cox regression models considering OS or PPS as the endpoint.ConclusionsThe association of reoperation with improved prognosis in recurrent glioblastoma is unclear and may be influenced by selection bias. Regardless of our selective indications and high gross total resection rates in second procedures, we could not observe a survival advantage.