PURPOSE: Currently, radiologic response of brain tumors is assessed according to the Macdonald criteria 10 weeks from the start of therapy. There exists a critical need to identify nonresponding patients early in the course of their therapy for consideration of alternative treatment strategies. Our study assessed the effectiveness of the parametric response map (PRM) imaging biomarker to provide for an earlier measure of patient survival prediction. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Forty-five high-grade glioma patients received concurrent chemoradiation. Quantitative MRI including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) maps were acquired pretreatment and 3 weeks midtreatment on a prospective institutional-approved study. PRM, a voxel-by-voxel image analysis method, was evaluated as an early prognostic biomarker of overall survival. Clinical and conventional MR parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that PRM(ADC+) in combination with PRM(rCBV-) obtained at week 3 had a stronger correlation to 1-year and overall survival rates than any baseline clinical or treatment response imaging metric. The composite biomarker identified three distinct patient groups, nonresponders [median survival (MS) of 5.5 months, 95% CI: 4.4-6.6 months], partial responders (MS of 16 months, 95% CI: 8.6-23.4 months), and responders (MS has not yet been reached). CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of PRM(ADC+) and PRM(rCBV-) into a single imaging biomarker metric provided early identification of patients resistant to standard chemoradiation. In comparison to the current standard of assessment of response at 10 weeks (Macdonald criteria), the composite PRM biomarker potentially provides a useful opportunity for clinicians to identify patients who may benefit from alternative treatment strategies.
PURPOSE: Currently, radiologic response of brain tumors is assessed according to the Macdonald criteria 10 weeks from the start of therapy. There exists a critical need to identify nonresponding patients early in the course of their therapy for consideration of alternative treatment strategies. Our study assessed the effectiveness of the parametric response map (PRM) imaging biomarker to provide for an earlier measure of patient survival prediction. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Forty-five high-grade gliomapatients received concurrent chemoradiation. Quantitative MRI including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) maps were acquired pretreatment and 3 weeks midtreatment on a prospective institutional-approved study. PRM, a voxel-by-voxel image analysis method, was evaluated as an early prognostic biomarker of overall survival. Clinical and conventional MR parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that PRM(ADC+) in combination with PRM(rCBV-) obtained at week 3 had a stronger correlation to 1-year and overall survival rates than any baseline clinical or treatment response imaging metric. The composite biomarker identified three distinct patient groups, nonresponders [median survival (MS) of 5.5 months, 95% CI: 4.4-6.6 months], partial responders (MS of 16 months, 95% CI: 8.6-23.4 months), and responders (MS has not yet been reached). CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of PRM(ADC+) and PRM(rCBV-) into a single imaging biomarker metric provided early identification of patients resistant to standard chemoradiation. In comparison to the current standard of assessment of response at 10 weeks (Macdonald criteria), the composite PRM biomarker potentially provides a useful opportunity for clinicians to identify patients who may benefit from alternative treatment strategies.
Authors: C R Meyer; J L Boes; B Kim; P H Bland; K R Zasadny; P V Kison; K Koral; K A Frey; R L Wahl Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: June L Chan; Susan W Lee; Benedick A Fraass; Daniel P Normolle; Harry S Greenberg; Larry R Junck; Stephen S Gebarski; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Kuei C Lee; Bradford A Moffat; Thomas L Chenevert; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: W J Curran; C B Scott; J Horton; J S Nelson; A S Weinstein; A J Fischbach; C H Chang; M Rotman; S O Asbell; R E Krisch Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-05-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David A Hormuth; Angela M Jarrett; Ernesto A B F Lima; Matthew T McKenna; David T Fuentes; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-02
Authors: Narek Shaverdian; Yingli Yang; Peng Hu; Steven Hart; Ke Sheng; James Lamb; Minsong Cao; Nzhde Agazaryan; David Thomas; Michael Steinberg; Daniel A Low; Percy Lee Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Xia Li; Hakmook Kang; Lori R Arlinghaus; Richard G Abramson; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Vandana G Abramson; Jaime Farley; Melinda Sanders; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Jennifer G Whisenant; Gregory D Ayers; Mary E Loveless; Stephanie L Barnes; Daniel C Colvin; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Benjamin Lemasson; Thomas L Chenevert; Theodore S Lawrence; Christina Tsien; Pia C Sundgren; Charles R Meyer; Larry Junck; Jennifer Boes; Stefanie Galbán; Timothy D Johnson; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross; Craig J Galbán Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 4.243