BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Oligodendrogliomas with 1p/19q chromosome LOH are more sensitive to chemoradiation therapy than those with intact alleles. The usefulness of dynamic susceptibility contrast-PWI-guided ¹H-MRS in differentiating these 2 genotypes was tested in this study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with oligodendrogliomas, 1p/19q LOH (n = 23) and intact alleles (n = 17), underwent MR imaging and 2D-¹H-MRS. ¹H-MRS VOI was overlaid on FLAIR images to encompass the hyperintense abnormality on the largest cross-section of the neoplasm and then overlaid on CBV maps to coregister CBV maps with ¹H-MRS VOI. rCBVmax values were obtained by measuring the CBV from each of the selected ¹H-MRS voxels in the neoplasm and were normalized with respect to contralateral white matter. Metabolite ratios with respect to ipsilateral Cr were computed from the voxel corresponding to the rCBVmax value. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to ascertain the best model to discriminate the 2 genotypes of oligodendrogliomas. Qualitative evaluation of conventional MR imaging characteristics (patterns of tumor border, signal intensity, contrast enhancement, and paramagnetic susceptibility effect) was also performed to distinguish the 2 groups of oligodendrogliomas. RESULTS: The incorporation of rCBVmax value and metabolite ratios (NAA/Cr, Cho/Cr, Glx/Cr, myo-inositol/Cr, and lipid + lactate/Cr) into the multivariate logistic regression model provided the best discriminatory classification with sensitivity (82.6%), specificity (64.7%), and accuracy (72%) in distinguishing 2 oligodendroglioma genotypes. Oligodendrogliomas with 1p/19q LOH were also more associated with paramagnetic susceptibility effect (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results indicate the potential of combing PWI and ¹H-MRS to distinguish oligodendroglial genotypes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Oligodendrogliomas with 1p/19q chromosome LOH are more sensitive to chemoradiation therapy than those with intact alleles. The usefulness of dynamic susceptibility contrast-PWI-guided ¹H-MRS in differentiating these 2 genotypes was tested in this study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with oligodendrogliomas, 1p/19q LOH (n = 23) and intact alleles (n = 17), underwent MR imaging and 2D-¹H-MRS. ¹H-MRS VOI was overlaid on FLAIR images to encompass the hyperintense abnormality on the largest cross-section of the neoplasm and then overlaid on CBV maps to coregister CBV maps with ¹H-MRS VOI. rCBVmax values were obtained by measuring the CBV from each of the selected ¹H-MRS voxels in the neoplasm and were normalized with respect to contralateral white matter. Metabolite ratios with respect to ipsilateral Cr were computed from the voxel corresponding to the rCBVmax value. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to ascertain the best model to discriminate the 2 genotypes of oligodendrogliomas. Qualitative evaluation of conventional MR imaging characteristics (patterns of tumor border, signal intensity, contrast enhancement, and paramagnetic susceptibility effect) was also performed to distinguish the 2 groups of oligodendrogliomas. RESULTS: The incorporation of rCBVmax value and metabolite ratios (NAA/Cr, Cho/Cr, Glx/Cr, myo-inositol/Cr, and lipid + lactate/Cr) into the multivariate logistic regression model provided the best discriminatory classification with sensitivity (82.6%), specificity (64.7%), and accuracy (72%) in distinguishing 2 oligodendroglioma genotypes. Oligodendrogliomas with 1p/19q LOH were also more associated with paramagnetic susceptibility effect (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results indicate the potential of combing PWI and ¹H-MRS to distinguish oligodendroglial genotypes.
Authors: Michael D Jenkinson; Daniel G du Plessis; Trevor S Smith; Kathy A Joyce; Peter C Warnke; Carol Walker Journal: Brain Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: R G Henry; D B Vigneron; N J Fischbein; P E Grant; M R Day; S M Noworolski; J M Star-Lack; L L Wald; W P Dillon; S M Chang; S J Nelson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Gurpreet S Kapoor; Timothy A Gocke; Sanjeev Chawla; Robert G Whitmore; Ali Nabavizadeh; Jaroslaw Krejza; Joanna Lopinto; Justin Plaum; Eileen Maloney-Wilensky; Harish Poptani; Elias R Melhem; Kevin D Judy; Donald M O'Rourke Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Sanjeev Chawla; Laura Oleaga; Sumei Wang; Jaroslaw Krejza; Ronald L Wolf; John H Woo; Donald M O'Rourke; Kevin D Judy; Michael S Grady; Elias R Melhem; Harish Poptani Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: A Rosemary Tate; Carles Majós; Angel Moreno; Franklyn A Howe; John R Griffiths; Carles Arús Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S Palfi; K R Swanson; S De Boüard; F Chrétien; R Oliveira; R K Gherardi; J M Kros; M Peschanski; C Christov Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-08-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Min Kyoung Lee; Ji Eun Park; Youngheun Jo; Seo Young Park; Sang Joon Kim; Ho Sung Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-08-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias W Wagner; Andrea Poretti; Thierry A G M Huisman; Thangamadhan Bosemani Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Hyun Jung Yoon; Kook Jin Ahn; Song Lee; Jin Hee Jang; Hyun Seok Choi; So Lyung Jung; Bum Soo Kim; Shin Soo Jeun; Yong Kil Hong Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: P P Batchala; T J E Muttikkal; J H Donahue; J T Patrie; D Schiff; C E Fadul; E K Mrachek; M-B Lopes; R Jain; S H Patel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 3.825