SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care / 2026 / Volume: 7 Issue: 1

Integrating molecular and clinical determinants of survival in a real-world glioblastoma cohort

Mehmet Salim Demir(SBÜ VAN EĞİTİM VE ARAŞTIRMA HASTANESİ)0000-0002-5143-4277
Gözde Ağdaş(SBÜ VAN EĞİTİM VE ARAŞTIRMA HASTANESİ)0000-0001-9771-6483
Erdoğan Şeyran(SBÜ VAN EĞİTİM VE ARAŞTIRMA HASTANESİ)0000-0002-5238-0522
Gürkan Güner(Medical Point Hospital, Izmir Economy University Faculty of Medicine)0000-0003-2275-1158
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-02-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, with compared with log-rank test.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain tumor in adults, with limited survival despite multimodal treatment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60 patients diagnosed with GBM between 2020 and 2023.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, with compared with log-rank test.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Glioblastoma · IDH mutation · MGMT methylation

Abstract

Aims: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain tumor in adults, with limited survival despite multimodal treatment. This retrospective study evaluated the prognostic impact molecular markers and clinical factors on survival outcomes in a real world GBM cohort. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60 patients diagnosed with GBM between 2020 and 2023. Clinical, radiological, surgical, and molecular data were retrospectively collected. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, with compared with log-rank test. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to identify independent prognostic factors. Results: Median OS and PFS for the entire cohort were 16.5 and 9.8 months, respectively. Molecular markers were the strongest prognostic factors: IDH-mutant and MGMT-methylated tumors showed significantly prolonged OS and PFS compared to their wild-type/unmethylated counterparts (p<.001). Surgical outcomes followed a clear gradient, with gross total resection (GTR) yielding the best survival, followed by subtotal resection (STR) and biopsy. Concurrent TMZ use was also associated with a significant improvement in OS (p<.001). Survival dynamics were further detailed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Conclusion: This study confirms the critical prognostic role of IDH mutation and MGMT promoter methylation status in GBM, while also validating the significant survival benefit associated with maximal surgical resection and concurrent TMZ. Our real-world outcomes translate effectively into long-term survival gains, reinforcing current treatment paradigms as reliable benchmarks for clinical management.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demir, M. S., Ağdaş, G., Şeyran, E., Güner, G. (2026). Integrating molecular and clinical determinants of survival in a real-world glioblastoma cohort. Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care, Volume: 7 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.47582/jompac.1850445

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P, et al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2021;142(2):141-162. doi:10.1007/s00401-021-02226-7
  2. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):987-996. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043330
  3. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):997-1003. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043331
  4. Yan H, Parsons DW, Jin G, et al. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(8):765-773. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0808718
  5. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization of glioblastoma. Nature. 2008;455(7216):1061-1068. doi:10.1038/nature07385
  6. Molinaro AM, Hervey-Jumper S, Morshed RA, et al. Association of IDH mutation with survival in glioma patients: a contemporary analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(4):495-503. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6143
  7. Weller M, Felsberg J, Hartmann C, et al. MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine? Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6(1):39-51. doi:10.1038/nrn2730
  8. Wick W, Platten M, Weller M, et al. MGMT testing—the challenges for biomarker-based glioma treatment. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014;10(6):372-385. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2014.100
  9. Sanai N, Berger MS. Extent of resection influences survival in glioblastoma. Neurosurgery. 2018;62(Suppl 1):1-15. doi:10.1227/01.neu. 0000310449.40911.93
  10. Grabowski MM, Recinos PF, Nowacki AS, et al. Residual tumor volume after resection impacts overall survival in glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2014;119(2):567-578. doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1503-y
  11. Gilbert MR, Wang M, Aldape KD, et al. Dose-dense temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: RTOG 0525. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(32): 4085-4091. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9430
  12. Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W, et al. Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy–temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(8):709-722. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1308345
  13. Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner AA, et al. Tumor-treating fields for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. JAMA. 2015;314(23):2535-2543. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.16669
  14. Wirsching HG, Weller M. Systemic therapy of glioblastoma: achievements, challenges, and next steps. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023;20(3): 173-186. doi:10.1038/s41571-022-00736-9
  15. Tan AC, Ashley DM, López GY, Malinzak M, Friedman HS, Khasraw M. Management of glioblastoma: state of the art and future directions. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(4):299-312. doi:10.3322/caac.21613
  16. Caccese M, Piga I, Bellu L, et al. Treatment of glioblastoma in the elderly: updated evidence. Front Oncol. 2021;10:608250. doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.608250
  17. Shergalis A, Bankhead A 3rd, Luesakul U, Muangsin N, Neamati N. Current challenges and opportunities in treating glioblastoma. Pharmacol Rev. 2018;70(3):412-445. doi:10.1124/pr.117.014944
  18. Olar A, Wren D, Zadeh G, et al. Molecular markers and survival in glioblastoma: integrating IDH, MGMT, and TERT. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;130(4):593-604. doi:10.1007/s00401-015-1445-2
  19. Weller M, van den Bent M, Preusser M, et al. EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diffuse gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(3): e281-e291. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30891-4
  20. Le Rhun E, Preusser M, Roth P, et al. Molecular targeted therapy of glioblastoma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2019;80:101896. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2019. 101896
  21. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology (RANO) working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1963-1972. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.24.6627
  22. Brown TJ, Brennan MC, Li M, et al. Association of the extent of resection with survival in glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(11):1460-1469. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1373
  23. Nabors LB, Portnow J, Ahluwalia M, et al. Central nervous system cancers, version 3.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(11):1537-1570. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2020. 0052