INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that methyl-guanine methyl transferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status, a predictor of the chemosensitivity for high grade gliomas (HGGs), may be associated with computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging variables. METHODS: Out of 38 consecutive patients with HGGs, 24 patients whose MGMT promoter methylation status was available [12 men and 12 women; median age, 49 years; age range, 22-79 years; WHO grade III (n = 7), WHO grade IV (n = 17)] were enrolled retrospectively. CT attenuation, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), fractional anisotropy (FA), and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) were measured for enhancing tumors. Qualitative imaging features were also analyzed. Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate relationships between MGMT promoter methylation status and imaging variables. RESULTS: Maximum CT attenuation was significantly lower in the methylated MGMT promoter group than that in the unmethylated MGMT promoter group (30.3 ± 9.5 HU versus 39.2 ± 4.7 HU, respectively, p = 0.009). While ADC values tended to be higher in the methylated group than in the unmethylated group (p = 0.055), ADC ratio was significantly higher, and the FA and FA ratios were significantly lower in the methylated group than in the unmethylated group (p = 0.032, p = 0.006 and p = 0.007, respectively). In contrast, rCBV ratio did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.380). Regarding imaging features, only ill-defined margin was seen more frequently in the methylated group than in the unmethylated group (45.5% versus 7.7%, respectively, p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: Preoperative imaging can predict MGMT promoter methylation status, which is of paramount importance for predicting treatment response to chemotherapy with an alkylating agent.
INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that methyl-guanine methyl transferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status, a predictor of the chemosensitivity for high grade gliomas (HGGs), may be associated with computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging variables. METHODS: Out of 38 consecutive patients with HGGs, 24 patients whose MGMT promoter methylation status was available [12 men and 12 women; median age, 49 years; age range, 22-79 years; WHO grade III (n = 7), WHO grade IV (n = 17)] were enrolled retrospectively. CT attenuation, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), fractional anisotropy (FA), and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) were measured for enhancing tumors. Qualitative imaging features were also analyzed. Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate relationships between MGMT promoter methylation status and imaging variables. RESULTS: Maximum CT attenuation was significantly lower in the methylated MGMT promoter group than that in the unmethylated MGMT promoter group (30.3 ± 9.5 HU versus 39.2 ± 4.7 HU, respectively, p = 0.009). While ADC values tended to be higher in the methylated group than in the unmethylated group (p = 0.055), ADC ratio was significantly higher, and the FA and FA ratios were significantly lower in the methylated group than in the unmethylated group (p = 0.032, p = 0.006 and p = 0.007, respectively). In contrast, rCBV ratio did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.380). Regarding imaging features, only ill-defined margin was seen more frequently in the methylated group than in the unmethylated group (45.5% versus 7.7%, respectively, p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: Preoperative imaging can predict MGMT promoter methylation status, which is of paramount importance for predicting treatment response to chemotherapy with an alkylating agent.
Authors: Antonio C M Maia; Suzana M F Malheiros; Antonio J da Rocha; João N Stávale; Iara F Guimarães; Lia R R Borges; Adrialdo J Santos; Carlos J da Silva; Julieta G S P de Melo; Oreste P Lanzoni; Alberto A Gabbai; Fernando A P Ferraz Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Andrés Server; Tone E Døli Orheim; Bjørn A Graff; Roger Josefsen; Theresa Kumar; Per H Nakstad Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Michael Weller; Roger Stupp; Guido Reifenberger; Alba A Brandes; Martin J van den Bent; Wolfgang Wick; Monika E Hegi Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: R A Prayson; D P Agamanolis; M L Cohen; M L Estes; B K Kleinschmidt-DeMasters; F Abdul-Karim; S P McClure; B A Sebek; R Vinay Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2000-04-01 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Martin J van den Bent; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Marc Sanson; Cathleen R van der Lee-Haarloo; Monika Hegi; Judith W M Jeuken; Ahmed Ibdaih; Alba A Brandes; Martin J B Taphoorn; Marc Frenay; Denis Lacombe; Thierry Gorlia; Winand N M Dinjens; Johan M Kros Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ajay Gupta; Antonio M P Omuro; Akash D Shah; Jerome J Graber; Weiji Shi; Zhigang Zhang; Robert J Young Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Andrea Romano; L F Calabria; F Tavanti; G Minniti; M C Rossi-Espagnet; V Coppola; S Pugliese; D Guida; G Francione; C Colonnese; L M Fantozzi; A Bozzao Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Panagiotis Korfiatis; Timothy L Kline; Daniel H Lachance; Ian F Parney; Jan C Buckner; Bradley J Erickson Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Harrison X Bai; Ashley M Lee; Li Yang; Paul Zhang; Christos Davatzikos; John M Maris; Sharon J Diskin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Tunc F Ersoy; Vera C Keil; Dariusch R Hadizadeh; Gerrit H Gielen; Rolf Fimmers; Andreas Waha; Barbara Heidenreich; Rajiv Kumar; Hans H Schild; Matthias Simon Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 2.804