Study compares quality of life outcomes between adjuvant treatment and a wait-and-scan strategy, indicating treatment implications.
BACKGROUND Quality of life (QoL) is a key consideration for patients with low-grade glioma (LGG), particularly due to the prolonged disease course and expanding treatment options. This study compared QoL outcomes between a “wait-and-scan” strategy and adjuvant treatment using data from the LoG-Glio Registry. MATERIAL AND METHODS QoL was assessed in 220 patients from the German prospective multicenter LoG-Glio Registry with IDH-mutant grade 2 and 3 diffuse gliomas. Patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BN-20 questionnaires over a 48-month postoperative period. Group comparisons were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U-test. A multivariate linear mixed model was used to identify QoL predictors, including age, gender, eloquent tumor location, pre-/postoperative deficits, preoperative ECOG status, diagnosis, type of surgery, residual tumor, and adjuvant treatment. RESULTS QoL data were available for all 220 patients. At 6 months post-surgery, patients who received adjuvant treatment had significantly lower overall QoL scores compared to the wait-and-scan group (69.4 vs. 77.0; p = 0.002). They also reported higher symptom burden (25.4 vs. 15.2; p = 0.003) and lower functioning scores (70.8 vs. 78.0; p = 0.04). Multivariate analysis confirmed a significant negative impact of adjuvant treatment at 6 months. By 12 months, these differences were no longer statistically significant. At 12 and 24 months, age was the only significant predictor of QoL decline (p = 0.009 and p = 0.012, respectively). CONCLUSION Adjuvant treatment in LGG is associated with lower QoL, increased symptoms, and reduced functioning in the first 6 months after surgery. These effects diminish over time, with QoL scores converging between treatment and observation groups by one year postoperatively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coburger et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: