Clinical predictors of pseudoprogression in glioblastoma: a retrospective cohort analysis
- PMID: 41134378
- PMCID: PMC12552241
- DOI: 10.1007/s11060-025-05299-0
Clinical predictors of pseudoprogression in glioblastoma: a retrospective cohort analysis
Abstract
Purpose: Distinguishing pseudoprogression (PsP) from true progression (TP) in glioblastoma (GBM) remains a diagnostic challenge, yet is essential for guiding treatment and counseling prognosis. This study retrospectively assessed the incidence, clinical predictors, and survival impact of PsP compared to TP.
Methods: Patients with surgically treated GBM and postoperative (chemo)radiotherapy in two Dutch hospitals (2006-2021) were included. Reports of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans performed 4 months post-radiotherapy and at 3-month intervals, as well as reports of MRI scans prompted by neurological decline, were evaluated for PsP, TP, or mixed response (MR). Associations with clinical, tumor, and treatment characteristics and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.
Results: Of 424 GBM patients, 175 were eligible for PsP analysis. The incidence of PsP was 29.1%, and PsP was associated with longer OS (median 16.6 months, 95% CI 12.0-21.2) compared to MR (14.1 months, 95% CI 11.1-17.2) and TP (11.6 months, 95% CI 10.0-13.2; p = 0.010). However, PsP occurring < 4 months after chemoradiotherapy was linked to shorter OS (11.3 months) than PsP > 4 months (17.4 months; p = 0.027). Male sex was significantly associated with outcome in univariate analysis, showing a trend toward significance in multivariate analysis. Treatment completion remained significant only in the multivariate model.
Conclusion: PsP is associated with improved survival compared to TP, though early-onset PsP portends poorer outcomes. None of the evaluated factors were a significant predictor of PsP in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Future research should focus on validating molecular markers, and refining PsP definitions using standardized criteria.
Keywords: Chemoradiotherapy; Glioblastoma; MGMT; Predictive factors; Pseudoprogression.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethical approval: This is a retrospective cohort study, approved by the Maastricht Academic Hospital Ethical committee (METC 16-4-022). Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures
References
-
- McKinnon C, Nandhabalan M, Murray SA, Plaha P (2021) Glioblastoma: clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management. BMJ 374:n1560 - PubMed
-
- Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJ et al (2005) Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant Temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352(10):987–996 - PubMed
-
- Perry JR, Laperriere N, O’Callaghan CJ, Brandes AA, Menten J, Phillips C et al (2017) Short-Course radiation plus Temozolomide in elderly patients with glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 376(11):1027–1037 - PubMed
-
- Malmstrom A, Gronberg BH, Marosi C, Stupp R, Frappaz D, Schultz H et al (2012) Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the nordic randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 13(9):916–926 - PubMed
-
- Wick W, Platten M, Meisner C, Felsberg J, Tabatabai G, Simon M et al (2012) Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant Astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 13(7):707–715 - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
