Tihan Tarik, Barletta Justine, Parney Ian, Lamborn Kathleen, Sneed Penny K, Chang Susan
Department of Pathology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0511, USA.
Hum Pathol. 2006 Mar;37(3):272-82. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2005.11.010.
The prognostic significance of the histologic type and grade of gliomas at initial surgery is well established, but the value of histologic findings in resections after radiotherapy is unclear. Despite this uncertainty, pathologic interpretation of specimens after radiotherapy influences immediate treatment decisions. It is important to determine if, and to what extent, treatment decisions should be based on this information. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of pathologic evaluation in postradiation specimens from 54 patients with similar clinical features who underwent a second surgery for the treatment of radiologic worsening after external beam radiotherapy. We categorized the specimens from the second surgery as either recurrent tumor (category 1) or radionecrosis (category 2). Patients in category 1 had actively proliferating neoplasms with classical features of glioblastoma, whereas patients in category 2 had no evidence of tumor in their surgical specimens. Cases in which a clear-cut definition could not be made were labeled indeterminate (category 3). Despite the morphological evidence of tumor, there were no significant differences between categories 1 and 2 in any of the survival parameters tested. The only difference between groups was higher frequency of iodine 125 (125I) placement at second surgery in category 1 patients (P <.028). Patients in category 1 with or without 125I treatment had similar survival characteristics. We conclude that histopathologic evaluation of postradiotherapy specimens was not helpful in predicting outcome or dictating further management. A comprehensive prospective study with advanced radiologic, pathologic, and molecular analyses may be more useful to determine prognostically valuable parameters.
胶质瘤初次手术时组织学类型和分级的预后意义已得到充分证实,但放疗后切除标本的组织学检查结果的价值尚不清楚。尽管存在这种不确定性,但放疗后标本的病理诊断会影响即时治疗决策。确定治疗决策是否应基于该信息以及应在何种程度上基于该信息非常重要。我们旨在确定54例具有相似临床特征的患者在接受外照射放疗后因影像学恶化而接受二次手术的放疗后标本的病理评估的预后价值。我们将二次手术的标本分为复发肿瘤(类别1)或放射性坏死(类别2)。类别1的患者有具有胶质母细胞瘤典型特征的活跃增殖性肿瘤,而类别2的患者手术标本中无肿瘤证据。无法明确界定的病例标记为不确定(类别3)。尽管有肿瘤的形态学证据,但在测试的任何生存参数方面,类别1和类别2之间均无显著差异。组间唯一的差异是类别1患者在二次手术时碘125(125I)植入的频率更高(P <.028)。接受或未接受125I治疗的类别1患者具有相似的生存特征。我们得出结论,放疗后标本的组织病理学评估无助于预测预后或指导进一步治疗。一项采用先进影像学、病理学和分子分析的全面前瞻性研究可能更有助于确定具有预后价值的参数。