
Palliative care in patients with glioblastoma: A systematic review
- Authors:
- Published online on: May 28, 2025 https://doi.org/10.3892/mi.2025.245
- Article Number: 46
-
Copyright : © Al‑Ghaithi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY 4.0].
Abstract
Introduction
Primary brain tumors comprise a heterogeneous group of neoplasms, with different outcomes, with patients requiring different management strategies. These tumors can range from pilocytic astrocytomas, a very uncommon, non-invasive curable tumor, to glioblastoma (GBM), which is associated with more invasive and aggressive behaviors (1).
GBM is the most common primary brain tumor among adults. It is associated with a median survival rate of 16-21 months and a 10-year survival of <1% (1-5). GBM accounts for 45.6% of all primary brain malignancies. The incidence rate of GBM is 3.19 among 100,000 individuals from different age groups with a median age of 64 years; however, it can occur at any age (6).
In general, GBM is associated with a very poor prognosis. However, several parameters associated with improved outcomes include an age <50 years, a non-eloquent tumor location, a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score ≥70 and the maximal extent of tumor resection (7,8).
The treatment of patients with GBM includes maximal surgical resection with adjuvant radiotherapy. The inclusion of nitrosoureas has exhibited benefits in addition to the standard treatment; however, this has only been demonstrated in multivariant and randomized comparison studies (7,9). The use of adjuvant temozolomide was previously investigated in a randomized phase III, EORTCNCIC trials along with standard surgical resection and radiotherapy; its use was found to be associated with an improved overall survival rate of 14.6 compared to 12.1 months with standard treatment with radiotherapy (10,11). Temozolomide was approved in 2005, and since then, it has been the standard chemotherapeutic treatment for GBM for six 6 cycles following radiotherapy (12).
GBMs have a high recurrence rate even in cases in which they have been discovered at an early stage and treated completely. The median recurrence time is 9.5 months, with an overall survival rate of 30 months (13). The treatment of recurrent or progressive GBMs can include supportive care, as decided by the treating physician. On the other hand, tumor-specific multidisciplinary boards are another approach for treating patients with GBM; the use of these has been shown to be associated with a 12-month survival rate of 32.5% compared to 11.3% in the group with supportive treatment (14).
A previous meta-analysis investigated palliative care intervention in adults with terminal illnesses and diseases, including oncology. The quality of life (QOL) of patients was assessed in 24 studies, including 4,576 patients; 12 (50%) studies evaluated the association between QOL and palliative care intervention and reported a statistically significant improvement in QOL and symptoms burden (15).
When assessing the end-of-life in a patient with GBM, a decreased level of consciousness, a change in mental status, fever, seizures and dysphagia have been shown to have the most marked clinical burden as the disease progresses. Moreover, this provides the basis for care in these terminal care cases to include anticonvulsants, steroids and gastric protection, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (16,17).
Other modalities of palliative care are short-course radiotherapy, which has been shown to be beneficial in patients with a KPS score <50, along with the optimal supportive and palliative care, including the use of corticosteroids (18). The use of mifepristone, a progesterone receptor antagonist, has also been suggested for palliative care therapy in patients with advanced-stage brain tumors, including GBM, as it exhibits good penetration through the blood-brain barrier (19).
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend the addition of palliative care in patients with advanced-stage cancer (20). Specifically, patients with GBM suffer from progressive neurological diseases that affect their QOL along with their decision-making capacity; of note, ~50% of patients with primary malignant brain tumors have compromised medical decision-making at the time of diagnosis due to cognitive impairment, behavioral changes and poor communication abilities (21). Therefore, advanced care planning (ACP) has evolved to facilitate the communication of goals and preferences regarding future medical care, and it is considered crucial in patients with GBM. It not only includes the treatment design and a proxy decision maker, but also extends to involve open communications between the patient, proxy, decision-makers and care providers to discuss the preferences for future medical care, including palliative care options (22).
ACP can be utilized to improve the quality of communications between patients and healthcare providers and may reduce unwanted interventions and admissions. In addition, it enhances the use of palliative care, which increases the satisfaction and QOL of both patients and relatives (22,23).
Therefore, the present study aimed to systematically review and analyze the available literature on patients with GBM receiving palliative care.
Data and methods
Literature search strategy
The present study aimed to systematically review and analyze the available literature on patients with GBM receiving palliative care. The PubMed, Scopus, Wiley and Web of Science databases were searched by three authors (AMAG, SAB and AMAA) to gather the available literature using the following key words: ‘Glioblastoma’, ‘GBM’, ‘Grade 4 glioma’, ‘Palliative care’, ‘Conservative’, ‘Non-surgical’, ‘Comfort care’, ‘Management’, ‘Palliative Radiotherapy’, ‘Palliative Chemotherapy’ and ‘End of life’.
Study selection, inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were selected using a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. All articles relevant to the topic of the review were included, covering patients of all age groups, and all types of palliative care used, in all settings and there was no time limit; however, articles that were not published in the English language were excluded from the systematic review.
Data extraction and analysis
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, AMAG, SAB and AMAA screened the titles and abstracts of possible eligible studies. Moreover, the three authors examined the key features from the eligible studies, extracting the aims, treatments and palliative care applied, as well as the outcomes, place of mortality (either at a health institute or at home), and the recommendation from the authors of that study. In addition, the three authors examined the year of publication, and the country where the study was conducted.
Results
Study selection, including and exclusion criteria
In the present systematic review, the three authors were allocated to investigate four databases, obtaining a total of 234 studies that matched the objectives of the review. Moreover, 112 studies were excluded as they were duplicates. After reviewing these articles, 72 studies were removed as they did not match the aim of the review. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 50 articles were included; however, of these, three articles were excluded as they were non-English studies, the full article could not be accessed in nine articles and 16 articles were not relevant to the study question. In addition, three studies were identified as copies or duplicates, having been retrieved from the searches conducted independently by the three different authors and were removed. Eventually, a total of 19 articles were included in the present systematic review (Fig. 1).
Quality assessment and geographical distribution
In the present systematic review, 19 articles were included, with publication years ranging between 1998 and 2022, with a total of 7,392 patients (Fig. 2). Of note, two of these articles were case reports (19,24). The majority of the included articles were retrospective analyses (10 articles out of 19 articles) (14,18,25-32). A total of four articles were prospective studies (16,33-35), two articles were systematic reviews (17,36) and one article was a randomized clinical trial (37) (Table I).
The present systematic review included articles conducted in a variety of countries (Table II); the majority of articles were from the USA (17,19,25,28,29,35,36), and the remaining articles were from Germany (14,18,33,37), Austria (16,32), Australia (26,30), Poland (31), Italy (34), Ireland (27), and one study published by authors from different nationalities (24).
Palliative care
From each included study, different aspects were evaluated, including the primary treatment administered if applicable, the palliative care treatment introduced, whether the study examined inpatients, outpatients, or both, and the outcomes derived from each intervention. The median survival rate was evaluated, and the recommendation was provided by the authors. In the included studies, different palliative care therapies were used as adjuvants with the primary treatment, targeting various aspects of palliative care (Table III).
Supportive treatment was one approach to palliative and end-of-life care in patients with GBM, as Pompili et al (34) aimed to identify home palliative care and end-of-life issues in patients with GBM. They found that midazolam was necessary in 11% of cases to achieve good control of symptoms, such as delirium, agitation and refractory seizures. In addition, phenobarbital was the drug of choice for severe seizures, which occurred in 30% of cases (34).
Moreover, the use of phenobarbital was assessed by Senderovich et al (24), in an end-of-life setting; its use was found to reduce complications associated with end-of-life care and improve the quality of remaining life (24).
Kuchinad et al (29) conducted a retrospective analysis on the management of patients with GBM, focusing on end-of-life care practices at an academic center. Their study primarily evaluated the use of chemotherapy as the main treatment approach for patients with GBM, without exploring palliative interventions. By comparing service utilization to national quality care guidelines, the researchers identified gaps in documentation related to palliative care and end-of-life planning. Their findings suggested that improving these aspects could enhance the overall quality of care provided to patients with GBM (29).
In patients receiving the full course of treatment, including surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, multiple palliative care interventions were used to improve the quality of life of these patients. Among such studies, Oberndorfer et al (32) focused on symptomatic management, including antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), steroids and analgesia, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy in end-of-life patients. They classified the end-of-life into phases, from phase 1 to 3. These interventions were associated with symptomatic improvement in end-of-life patients, particularly when introduced via the non-oral route, given that the majority of patients developed dysphagia at this stage (32).
Lin et al (26) investigated steroids, AEDs, benzodiazepines and allied health involvement. They found that early palliative care resulted in a significant improvement in pain, somnolence, symptoms and distress score; they recommended the initiation of palliative care not only with medication treatment, but also with rehabilitation, along with psychosocial support (26).
Stavrinou et al (14) compared supportive care and second-line, tumor-focused treatment at first progression in two different groups. They found that second-line treatment, which is tumor-focused, is more effective in terms of outcomes and in terms of overall survival (14).
Apart from supportive care, Ziobro et al (31) examined the effects of palliative treatment with temozolomide in patients with high-grade gliomas. They found this treatment to be beneficial in 49% of patients in the study group (31).
Overall, standardizing guidelines for end-of-life care in patients with GBM was suggested by Thier et al (16), when they studied the symptoms and signs in the last 10 days prior to mortality, and how these could affect the health and care of patients (16).
In studies using radiotherapy and surgery as the primary treatment for GBM, Witteler et al (18) used radiotherapy as a palliative care treatment and found that it increased the survival rate, and that it was a reasonable option for patients with a limited prognosis. On the other hand, Reimer et al (33) used laser-induced thermotherapy (LITT) and found that interventional MRI controlled LITT and that it provided potential treatment benefits; MRI provides excellent topographic accuracy due to its capability for soft tissue contrast with high specific resolution and functional aspects (33).
Location of mortality
The location of mortality of patients with GBM differs between hospitals and health institutes, homes and hospice care. Out of the 19 studies included in the present systematic review, 10 studies reported hospitals as the place of mortality (Table IV) (16,17,24,26,28-30,32,34,36).
Wu et al (36) performed a systematic review of palliative care service utilization and advance care planning. They demonstrated that the location of mortality was mentioned in only six out of the 16 studies included, and they similarly found that mortality in health care institutes was the most common compared to other locations, reaching up to 78% (36).
Mortality at home was reported in seven studies, with the numbers of patients varying from 12 to 53% (17,19,28-30,34,36). On the other hand, hospice care was the least mentioned among the included studies as the site of mortality (28,29,34,38). Wu et al (36) found that the mortality rate in this setting ranged from 12to 64%. However, Sundararajan et al (30) found that this rate was 49%.
Discussion
The present study reviewed and systematically analyzed the available literature on patients with GBM receiving palliative care. GBM is considered to be the most common type of brain tumor in adults. It accounts for 45.6% of all brain tumors (1-5). It is generally associated with a very poor prognosis, as well as with a high recurrence rate (7,8,13). The treatment of patients with GBM includes maximal surgical resection with adjuvant radiotherapy (7,9).
Other modalities of treatment include supportive care as decided upon by the treating physician; however, other researchers advocate for tumor-specific multidisciplinary approaches to plan the treatment (14). Palliative care is currently recommended by the ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines to be considered when treating patients with GBM (20).
A variety of studies investigating the management and palliative care of patients with GBM have been published. The present systematic review included publications over a wide range of years, from 1998 to 2022. It was found that 2014 accounted for the highest number of publications, which included four publications, followed by 2021 (Fig. 2). However, Wu et al (36) demonstrated that 2014, 2017 and 2018 were the years with the highest number of publications. Moreover, Ironside et al (38) found that 2012 was the year with the highest number of publications.
Mean survival age
As GBM is a disease that is associated with a poor prognosis, improving the QOL and prolonging the life expectancy of patients is the main aim of palliative care, not only for patients but also for their families (39). The total number of patients who were diagnosed with grade 4 GBM between 2004 and 2017 and received palliative care was 2,803(40). Compared to the results of the present study, the total number of patients who received palliative care was 1,630, and this was expected, as some of the selected articles did not mention the exact number of patients who received palliative care from GBM. In terms of the ability to carry out daily activities, the studies have a KPS >50% with variable modalities of palliative care. Specifically, patients who received radiotherapy had a KPS score >60%, which is consistent in comparison with other studies that reported patients who received radiotherapy had a KPS score >60% (38).
Palliative care in GBM
In the present systematic review, the median survival rate reached 14 months, which was consistent with a recently published retrospective study by Mohammed et al (41). Providing the optimal treatment when dealing with patients who require palliative care is critical; it is highly recommended to establish a specific and well-structured palliative care guideline for patients with GBM (16,32). Moreover, further research is warranted to define appropriate symptom management for those patients, which will be also helpful in the process of establishing GBM palliative care guidelines (17,34,42). Making these guidelines universal will ensure the right of patients to receive all and appropriate methods of palliative care and participation from multiple specialties recommended to target and deliver the optimal options for the patient (34).
Location of mortality
The location of mortality for patients with GBM varies across hospitals, homes and hospice care. Out of the 19 studies included in the present systematic review, 10 of these reported the hospital as the place of mortality (16,17,24,26,28-30,32,34,36). This may be explained by the late hospitalization, particularly in intensive care, which has resulted in mortality in acute hospital care (43). Wu et al (36) performed a systematic review of palliative care service utilization and advance care planning, and demonstrated that the location of mortality was mentioned in only six out of 16 studies included; they similarly found that mortality in health care institutes was the most common compared to other places, reaching up to 78% (36).
However, Sundararajan et al (30) performed a retrospective study and found that 25% of the patients died in an acute hospital bed. Thus, the majority of the patients prefer to die at home, as shown by Barbaro et al (43). Moreover, home deaths were reported to range from 12 to 53.1% (17,19,28-30,34,36), which is less than the number reported by Wu et al (36) in their review.
As regards hospice care, the analysis revealed this to be the least common site of mortality (17,29,30,34). Wu et al (36) found that the mortality rate in this setting ranged from 12 to 64%. However, Sundararajan et al (30) found that this rate to be 49%.
Limitations and future implications
The present systematic review was not without any limitations. Moreover, with such a prolonged study period, limited studies were found focusing on palliative care at the end-of-life for patients of GBM. In addition, end-of-life care can be challenging, and subjective measures will be limited to assess the needs of patients, and the outcomes of such an intervention, which will limit the study outcome.
In conclusion, patients with GBM have a poor prognosis and a poor survival rate, even with the optimal treatment available. Moreover, multiple signs and symptoms can have a tremendous burden on the end of life of patients and their families. Palliative care in these patients aims to relieve the burden of end-of-life care and improve the quality of life for them and their families. Different palliative care options were studied that led to the effective relief of patient symptoms, including symptomatic treatment, the involvement of other services, such as physiotherapy and some medications targeting each symptom and radiotherapy. Overall, the early planning and involvement of these services are critical and have a notable impact on the end-of-life of patients.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Funding: No funding was received.
Availability of data and materials
The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.
Authors' contributions
AMAG and SAB were involved in data collection, data analysis and in the writing of the manuscript. AMAA was involved in data analysis and in the writing of the manuscript. DAH was involved in data collection. AAH was involved in data analysis, and in the writing and editing of the manuscript. TAS conceived and designed the study, and was involved in writing the manuscript. AMAG, SAB, AMAA, DAH and AAH confirm the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
Nabors LB, Portnow J, Ahluwalia M, Baehring J, Brem H, Brem S, Butowski N, Campian JL, Clark SW, Fabiano AJ, et al: Central nervous system cancers, version 3.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 18:1537–1570. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Theeler BJ and Gilbert MR: Advances in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. BMC Med. 13(293)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Tykocki T and Eltayeb M: Ten-year survival in glioblastoma. A systematic review. J Clin Neurosci. 54:7–13. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner A, Read W, Steinberg D, Lhermitte B, Toms S, Idbaih A, Ahluwalia MS, Fink K, et al: Effect of tumor-treating fields plus maintenance temozolomide vs maintenance temozolomide alone on survival in patients with glioblastoma: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 318:2306–2316. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner AA, Kesari S, Steinberg DM, Toms SA, Taylor LP, Lieberman F, Silvani A, Fink KL, et al: Maintenance therapy with tumor-treating fields plus temozolomide vs temozolomide alone for glioblastoma: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 314:2535–2543. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Ostrom QT, Cioffi G, Waite K, Kruchko C and Barnholtz-Sloan JS: CBTRUS statistical report: Primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2014-2018. Neuro Oncol. 23 (12 Suppl 2):iii1–iii105. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Lacroix M, Abi-Said D, Fourney DR, Gokaslan ZL, Shi W, DeMonte F, Lang FF, McCutcheon IE, Hassenbusch SJ, Holland E, et al: A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: Prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. J Neurosurg. 95:190–198. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Curran WJ Jr, Scott CB, Horton J, Nelson JS, Weinstein AS, Fischbach AJ, Chang CH, Rotman M, Asbell SO, Krisch RE, et al: Recursive partitioning analysis of prognostic factors in three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group malignant glioma trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 85:704–710. 1993.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Walker MD, Green SB, Byar DP, Alexander E, Batzdorf U, Brooks WH, Hunt WE, MacCarty CS, Mahaley MS Jr, Mealey J Jr, et al: Randomized comparisons of radiotherapy and nitrosoureas for the treatment of malignant glioma after surgery. N Engl J Med. 303:1323–1329. 1980.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJ, Belanger K, Brandes AA, Marosi C, Bogdahn U, et al: Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 352:987–996. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Taphoorn MJ, Janzer RC, Ludwin SK, Allgeier A, Fisher B, Belanger K, et al: Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 10:459–466. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Ozdemir-Kaynak E, Qutub AA and Yesil-Celiktas O: Advances in glioblastoma multiforme treatment: New models for nanoparticle therapy. Front Physiol. 9(170)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Roy S, Lahiri D, Maji T and Biswas J: Recurrent glioblastoma: Where we stand. South Asian J Cancer. 4:163–173. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Stavrinou P, Kalyvas A, Grau S, Hamisch C, Galldiks N, Katsigiannis S, Kabbasch C, Timmer M, Goldbrunner R and Stranjalis G: Survival effects of a strategy favoring second-line multimodal treatment compared to supportive care in glioblastoma patients at first progression. J Neurosurg. 131:1136–1141. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Kavalieratos D, Corbelli J, Zhang D, Dionne-Odom JN, Ernecoff NC, Hanmer J, Hoydich ZP, Ikejiani DZ, Klein-Fedyshin M, Zimmermann C, et al: Association between palliative care and patient and caregiver outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 316:2104–2114. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Thier K, Calabek B, Tinchon A, Grisold W and Oberndorfer S: The last 10 days of patients with glioblastoma: Assessment of clinical signs and symptoms as well as treatment. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 33:985–988. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Walbert T and Khan M: End-of-life symptoms and care in patients with primary malignant brain tumors: A systematic literature review. J Neurooncol. 117:217–224. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Witteler J, Schild SE and Rades D: Palliative radiotherapy of primary glioblastoma. In Vivo. 35:483–487. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Check JH, Wilson C, Cohen R and Sarumi M: Evidence that Mifepristone, a progesterone receptor antagonist, can cross the blood brain barrier and provide palliative benefits for glioblastoma multiforme grade IV. Anticancer Res. 34:2385–2388. 2014.PubMed/NCBI | |
Ferrell BR, Temel JS, Temin S, Alesi ER, Balboni TA, Basch EM, Firn JI, Paice JA, Peppercorn JM, Phillips T, et al: Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 35:96–112. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Triebel KL, Martin RC, Nabors LB and Marson DC: Medical decision-making capacity in patients with malignant glioma. Neurology. 73:2086–2092. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Brinkman-Stoppelenburg A, Rietjens JA and van der Heide A: The effects of advance care planning on end-of-life care: A systematic review. Palliat Med. 28:1000–1025. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Houben CHM, Spruit MA, Groenen MTJ, Wouters EFM and Janssen DJA: Efficacy of advance care planning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 15:477–489. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Senderovich H, Waicus S and Mokenela K: Evading seizures: Phenobarbital reintroduced as a multifunctional approach to end-of-life care. Case Rep Oncol. 15:218–224. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Harrison RA, Ou A, Naqvi SMAA, Naqvi SM, Weathers SS, O'Brien BJ, de Groot JF and Bruera E: Aggressiveness of care at end of life in patients with high-grade glioma. Cancer Med. 10(8387)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Lin E, Rosenthal MA, Eastman P and Le BH: Inpatient palliative care consultation for patients with glioblastoma in a tertiary hospital. Intern Med J. 43:942–945. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Glynn AM, Rangaswamy G, O'Shea J, Dunne M, Grogan R, MacNally S, Fitzpatrick D and Faul C: Glioblastoma Multiforme in the over 70's: ‘To treat or not to treat with radiotherapy?’. Cancer Med. 8:4669–4677. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hemminger LE, Pittman CA, Korones DN, Serventi JN, Ladwig S, Holloway RG and Mohile NA: Palliative and end-of-life care in glioblastoma: Defining and measuring opportunities to improve care. Neurooncol Pract. 4:182–188. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Kuchinad KE, Strowd R, Evans A, Riley WA and Smith TJ: End of life care for glioblastoma patients at a large academic cancer center. J Neurooncol. 134:75–81. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Sundararajan V, Bohensky MA, Moore G, Brand CA, Lethborg C, Gold M, Murphy MA, Collins A and Philip J: Mapping the patterns of care, the receipt of palliative care and the site of death for patients with malignant glioma. J Neurooncol. 116:119–126. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Ziobro M, Rolski J, Grela-Wojewoda A, Zygulska A and Niemiec M: Effects of palliative treatment with temozolomide in patients with high-grade gliomas. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 42:210–215. 2008.PubMed/NCBI | |
Oberndorfer S, Lindeck-Pozza E, Lahrmann H, Struhal W, Hitzenberger P and Grisold W: The end-of-life hospital setting in patients with glioblastoma. J Palliat Med. 11:26–30. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Reimer P, Bremer C, Horch C, Morgenroth C, Allkemper T and Schuierer G: MR-monitored LITT as a palliative concept in patients with high grade gliomas: Preliminary clinical experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 8:240–244. 1998.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Pompili A, Telera S, Villani V and Pace A: Home palliative care and end of life issues in glioblastoma multiforme: Results and comments from a homogeneous cohort of patients. Neurosurg Focus. 37(E5)2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Kim JY, Peters KB, Herndon JE II and Affronti ML: Utilizing a palliative care screening tool in patients with glioblastoma. J Adv Pract Oncol. 11:684–692. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Wu A, Ruiz Colón G, Aslakson R, Pollom E and Patel CB: Palliative care service utilization and advance care planning for adult glioblastoma patients: A systematic review. Cancers (Basel). 13(2867)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Golla H, Nettekoven C, Bausewein C, Tonn JC, Thon N, Feddersen B, Schnell O, Böhlke C, Becker G, Rolke R, et al: Effect of early palliative care for patients with glioblastoma (EPCOG): A randomised phase III clinical trial protocol. BMJ Open. 10(e034378)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Ironside SA, Sahgal A, Detsky J, Das S and Perry JR: Update on the management of elderly patients with glioblastoma: A narrative review. Ann Palliat Med. 10:899–908. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Teoli D, Schoo C and Kalish VB: Palliative Care. StatPearls [Internet]. 2023 Feb 6 [cited 2024 Apr 15]; Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537113/. | |
Pando A, Patel AM, Choudhry HS, Eloy JA, Goldstein IM and Liu JK: Palliative care effects on survival in glioblastoma: Who receives palliative care? World Neurosurg. 170:e847–e857. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Mohammed S, Dinesan M and Ajayakumar T: Survival and quality of life analysis in glioblastoma multiforme with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A retrospective study. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 27:1026–1036. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Seekatz B, Lukasczik M, Löhr M, Ehrmann K, Schuler M, Keßler AF, Neuderth S, Ernestus RI and van Oorschot B: Screening for symptom burden and supportive needs of patients with glioblastoma and brain metastases and their caregivers in relation to their use of specialized palliative care. Support Care Cancer. 25:2761–2770. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Barbaro M, Blinderman CD, Iwamoto FM, Kreisl TN, Welch MR, Odia Y, Donovan LE, Joanta-Gomez AE, Evans KA and Lassman AB: Causes of death and end-of-life care in patients with intracranial high-grade gliomas: A retrospective observational study. Neurology. 98:e260–e266. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar |