Radiotherapy and temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis of the EORTC 26981/22981-NCIC CE3 phase III randomized trial

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and National Cancer Institute of Canada trial on temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy (RT) in glioblastoma (GBM) has demonstrated that the combination of TMZ and RT conferred a significant and meaningful survival advantage compared with RT alone. We evaluated in this trial whether the recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) retains its overall prognostic value and what the benefit of the combined modality is in each RPA class. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred seventy-three patients with newly diagnosed GBM were randomly assigned to standard postoperative RT or to the same RT with concomitant TMZ followed by adjuvant TMZ. The primary end point was overall survival. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer RPA used accounts for age, WHO performance status, extent of surgery, and the Mini-Mental Status Examination. RESULTS: Overall survival was statistically different among RPA classes III, IV, and V, with median survival times of 17, 15, and 10 months, respectively, and 2-year survival rates of 32%, 19%, and 11%, respectively (P < .0001). Survival with combined TMZ/RT was higher in RPA class III, with 21 months median survival time and a 43% 2-year survival rate, versus 15 months and 20% for RT alone (P = .006). In RPA class IV, the survival advantage remained significant, with median survival times of 16 v 13 months, respectively, and 2-year survival rates of 28% v 11%, respectively (P = .0001). In RPA class V, however, the survival advantage of RT/TMZ was of borderline significance (P = .054). CONCLUSION: RPA retains its prognostic significance overall as well as in patients receiving RT with or without TMZ for newly diagnosed GBM, particularly in classes III and IV.

The trouble with quality filtering based on relative Cramér-Rao lower bounds.

Cramér Rao Lower Bounds (CRLB) have become the standard for expression of uncertainties in quantitative MR spectroscopy. If properly interpreted as a lower threshold of the error associated with model fitting, and if the limits of its estimation are respected, CRLB are certainly a very valuable tool to give an idea of minimal uncertainties in magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), although other sources of error may be larger. Unfortunately, it has also become standard practice to use relative CRLB expressed as a percentage of the presently estimated area or concentration value as unsupervised exclusion criterion for bad quality spectra. It is shown that such quality filtering with widely used threshold levels of 20% to 50% CRLB readily causes bias in the estimated mean concentrations of cohort data, leading to wrong or missed statistical findings-and if applied rigorously-to the failure of using MRS as a clinical instrument to diagnose disease characterized by low levels of metabolites. Instead, absolute CRLB in comparison to those of the normal group or CRLB in relation to normal metabolite levels may be more useful as quality criteria. Magn Reson Med, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.