Retrospective analysis identifies adverse clinical phenotype in IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, suggesting novel prognostic insights.
Objective In IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, prognosis is conventionally interpreted through established molecular, clinical, surgical and anatomical factors, whereas the prognostic meaning of the mode of onset is less defined. We hypothesized that neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric presentation identifies an adverse clinical phenotype, potentially reflecting diagnostic delay and/or early disruption of distributed cerebral networks. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 165 patients with IDH-wildtype glioblastoma treated with standard chemoradiation at a single institution. The main presenting symptom was reviewed from clinical documentation and dichotomized as neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric versus all other presentations. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was the secondary endpoint. Multivariable Cox models were adjusted for prespecified covariates: MGMT promoter methylation, extent of resection, baseline Karnofsky Performance Status, age, and subventricular zone contact. Results Thirty-one patients (18.8%) had a neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric onset. In unadjusted analysis, PFS showed a non-significant separation (log-rank p = 0.175), and OS curves did not differ (log-rank p = 0.896). After adjustment, neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric onset was associated with shorter PFS (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.13-2.77; p = 0.012). The OS estimate was concordant and reached statistical significance in the secondary multivariable model (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.02-2.87; p = 0.041). The PFS association was consistent across sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric onset identified a higher-risk presentation phenotype associated with shorter PFS and, in secondary analyses, shorter OS after adjustment for established prognostic factors. These hypothesis-generating findings suggest that clinical mode of onset may capture prognostic information not fully reflected by conventional variables and warrant prospective multicenter validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Donnini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: