Adolescent and young adult glioma: systematic review of demographic, disease, and treatment influences on survival. Issue 1 (22nd October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Malhotra, Armaan K; Karthikeyan, Vishwathsen; Zabih, Veda; Landry, Alexander; Bennett, Julie; Bartels, Ute; Nathan, Paul C; Tabori, Uri; Hawkins, Cynthia; Das, Sunit; Gupta, Sumit
• Is Part Of: Neuro-oncology advances. Volume 4:Issue 1(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-10-22
• Subjects: adolescents -- glioma -- prognostic factors -- treatment -- young adults; 616.99481
• DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdac168
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2632-2498

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Prognostic factors in adolescent and young adult (AYA) glioma are not well understood. Though clinical and molecular differences between pediatric and adult glioma have been characterized, their application to AYA populations is less clear. There is a major need to develop more robust evidence-based practices for managing AYA glioma patients. Methods: A systematic review using PRISMA methodology was conducted using multiple databases with the objective of identifying demographic, clinical, molecular and treatment factors influencing AYA glioma outcomes. Results: 40 Studies met inclusion criteria. Overall survival was highly variable across studies depending on glioma grade, anatomic compartment and cohort characteristics. Thirty-five studies suffered from high risk of bias in at least one domain. Several studies included older adults within their cohorts; few captured purely AYA groups. Despite study heterogeneity, identified favorable prognosticators included younger age, higher functional status at diagnosis, low-grade pathology, oligodendroglioma histology and increased extent of surgical resection. Though isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutant status was associated with favorable prognosis, validity of this finding within AYA was compromised though may studies including older adults. The prognostic influence of chemotherapy and radiotherapy on overall survival varied across studies with conflicting evidence. Conclusion: Existing literature is heterogenous, at high risk of bias, and rarely focused solely on AYA patients. Many included studies did not reflect updated pathological and molecular AYA glioma classification. The optimal role of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and targeted agents cannot be determined from existing literature and should be the focus of future studies.