ABSTRACT
Meningeal dissemination (MDS) of glioblastoma is rare, although its incidence might have been underestimated. MDS of glioblastoma has a fatal course. Thus, rapid and precise diagnosis of MDS is important for further palliative treatment. Unfortunately, MDS of glioblastoma could be diagnosed at a delayed time, causing failure to treat patient optimally. Herein, we present a case of a 56-year-old male with MDS of glioblastoma mimicking chronic subdural hemorrhage (CSDH) after head trauma due to slip down. During treatment for CSDH, MDS of glioblastoma was not controlled appropriately. The patient succumbed to MDS of glioblastoma at 9 weeks after the date of diagnosis of CSDH which could be an MDS.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to investigate the role of the Neurological Assessment of Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale in predicting the prognosis of patients with glioblastoma, and compare these results to predicted data of the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)/World Health Organization (WHO) performance status. Additionally, we examined other prognostic factors in glioblastoma patients. METHODS: The medical records of 76 patients with a new diagnosis of histologically ascertained glioblastoma in the period from January 2002 to December 2015 at the authors' institution were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical factors, including epidemiologic, radiologic, and therapeutic values were reviewed as well as the performance status assessed by the KPS, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale. RESULTS: The mean overall survival was 19.8 months (95% confidence interval 15.2-25.4 months). At initial diagnosis, the mean value [±standard deviation (SD)] of KPS score, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale were 81 (±7.4), 1.3 (±0.6), and 7.3 (±3.8), respectively. Multivariate analysis for predicting survival showed odds ratios of KPS score, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale were 2.502 (≥80 vs. <80; p=0.024), 1.691 (0-1 vs. 2-5; p=0.047), and 2.763 (0-7 vs. 8-23; p=0.020), respectively. At the time of progression, the mean value (±SD) of KPS score, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale were 69 (±8.2), 1.6 (±0.7), and 11.4 (±4.2), respectively; multivariate analysis for predicting survival showed that the odd ratios for KPS score, ECOG/WHO performance status, and NANO scale were 2.007 (≥80 vs. <80; p=0.035), 1.321 (0-1 vs. 2-5; p=0.143), and 3.182 (0-7 vs. 8-23; p=0.002), respectively. CONCLUSION: The NANO scale provided a more detailed and objective measure of neurologic function than that currently used for predicting the prognosis of glioblastoma patients, especially at the time of progression.
