An Assessment of the Consequence of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Advanced-Stage Cerebral Tumor Individuals

Abstract

Introduction: The study explores HFR as an alternative treatment for GBM and AA, comparing it to CFR. It emphasizes HFR’s potential for elderly or frail patients who may struggle with longer treatment regimens. The primary goal is to assess its impact on OS, PFS, treatment response, and QoL.

Materials and Methods: • Literature Review: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were reviewed comparing HFR and CFR in GBM patients, especially those aged 60+ or with poor performance status (PS). • Study Design: A retrospective analysis assessed the outcomes of patients treated with HFR or CFR, focusing on survival rates, response rates, side effects, and QoL. • Radiation Techniques: Two treatment approaches were analyzed: a monophasic approach (European research organizations) and a biphasic approach (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, RTOG).

Results: • Survival and PFS: No significant difference in OS or PFS between HFR and CFR groups, with median OS of 14 months for HFR and 13 months for CFR. • Objective Response Rate: HFR showed a higher response rate (45%) compared to CFR (35%), but the difference was not statistically significant. • Side Effects: Both groups showed similar side effects, though the HFR group had a slightly higher incidence of late side effects like radiation necrosis, though not statistically significant. • Quality of Life: No significant QoL difference between the two groups, indicating that HFR does not negatively affect QoL compared to CFR.

Conclusion: HFR is a viable alternative to CFR for advanced-stage cerebral tumors, offering similar survival and PFS outcomes, with the advantage of shorter treatment duration. Although the response rate in the HFR group was slightly better, further research is needed to confirm long-term benefits and evaluate potential late side effects. Future studies should focus on molecular stratification and combining HFR with other therapies.