BACKGROUND: Regions of hypoxia within glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) are common and may influence a tumor's aggressiveness, response to treatment, and the patient's overall survival. In this study, the authors examined 4 markers of hypoxia (hypoxia-inducible factor 1 [HIF-1alpha], glucose transporter 1 [GLUT-1], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], and carbonic anhydrase 9 [CA IX]), cellular proliferation and microvascular density (MVD) indices, extent of surgical resection, and preoperative imaging characteristics and compared them with the overall survival rates of adults with GBM. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients who had lower grade astrocytomas were compared with patients who had GBM to verify that the methods used could establish differences between tumor grades. By using preoperative imaging, the amount of necrosis was established versus the overall tumor area. The authors also compared preoperative images with postoperative images to define the amount of tumor resected; and they compared molecular markers, proliferation, MVD, and imaging studies with survival among patients who had GBM. RESULTS: The hypoxia-regulated molecules (HRMs) and indices for MVD and cellular proliferation were associated significantly with tumor grade. Survival was improved when >or=95% of the tumor was resected. Although the total tumor area was associated with overall survival, no differences were observed when the amount of necrosis or a tumor necrosis index (area of necrosis/area of tumor) was compared with survival. The findings indicated that GLUT-1 and VEGF were correlated with survival after controlling for age. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor grade was differentiated with HRMs, MVD, and proliferation, but only GLUT-1 predicted survival in this group of patients with GBM. The results suggested that GLUT-1 may be an important independent prognostic indicator. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Regions of hypoxia within glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) are common and may influence a tumor's aggressiveness, response to treatment, and the patient's overall survival. In this study, the authors examined 4 markers of hypoxia (hypoxia-inducible factor 1 [HIF-1alpha], glucose transporter 1 [GLUT-1], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], and carbonic anhydrase 9 [CA IX]), cellular proliferation and microvascular density (MVD) indices, extent of surgical resection, and preoperative imaging characteristics and compared them with the overall survival rates of adults with GBM. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients who had lower grade astrocytomas were compared with patients who had GBM to verify that the methods used could establish differences between tumor grades. By using preoperative imaging, the amount of necrosis was established versus the overall tumor area. The authors also compared preoperative images with postoperative images to define the amount of tumor resected; and they compared molecular markers, proliferation, MVD, and imaging studies with survival among patients who had GBM. RESULTS: The hypoxia-regulated molecules (HRMs) and indices for MVD and cellular proliferation were associated significantly with tumor grade. Survival was improved when >or=95% of the tumor was resected. Although the total tumor area was associated with overall survival, no differences were observed when the amount of necrosis or a tumor necrosis index (area of necrosis/area of tumor) was compared with survival. The findings indicated that GLUT-1 and VEGF were correlated with survival after controlling for age. CONCLUSIONS:Tumor grade was differentiated with HRMs, MVD, and proliferation, but only GLUT-1 predicted survival in this group of patients with GBM. The results suggested that GLUT-1 may be an important independent prognostic indicator. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
Authors: C Rodríguez-Pereira; J M Suárez-Peñaranda; M Vázquez-Salvado; M J Sobrido; M Abraldes; F Barros; J Forteza Journal: J Neurosurg Sci Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: P Korkolopoulou; E Patsouris; N Kavantzas; A E Konstantinidou; P Christodoulou; E Thomas-Tsagli; A Pananikolaou; C Eftychiadis; P M Pavlopoulos; D Angelidakis; D Rologis; P Davaris Journal: Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 8.090
Authors: M Lacroix; D Abi-Said; D R Fourney; Z L Gokaslan; W Shi; F DeMonte; F F Lang; I E McCutcheon; S J Hassenbusch; E Holland; K Hess; C Michael; D Miller; R Sawaya Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: A Lal; H Peters; B St Croix; Z A Haroon; M W Dewhirst; R L Strausberg; J H Kaanders; A J van der Kogel; G J Riggins Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-09-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Paul Kleihues; David N Louis; Bernd W Scheithauer; Lucy B Rorke; Guido Reifenberger; Peter C Burger; Webster K Cavenee Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Robert J Harris; Jingwen Yao; Ararat Chakhoyan; Catalina Raymond; Kevin Leu; Linda M Liau; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Albert Lai; Noriko Salamon; Whitney B Pope; Timothy F Cloughesy; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kristin R Swanson; Russell C Rockne; Jonathan Claridge; Mark A Chaplain; Ellsworth C Alvord; Alexander R A Anderson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Rheal A Towner; David L Gillespie; Andrea Schwager; Debra G Saunders; Nataliya Smith; Charity E Njoku; Richard S Krysiak; Chelsea Larabee; Henna Iqbal; Robert A Floyd; David W A Bourne; Osama Abdullah; Edward W Hsu; Randy L Jensen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Rheal A Towner; Randy L Jensen; Howard Colman; Brian Vaillant; Nataliya Smith; Rebba Casteel; Debra Saunders; David L Gillespie; Robert Silasi-Mansat; Florea Lupu; Cory B Giles; Jonathan D Wren Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.654