A Hilario1, J M Sepulveda2, A Perez-Nuñez3, E Salvador4, J M Millan4, A Hernandez-Lain5, V Rodriguez-Gonzalez6, A Lagares3, A Ramos4. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (A.H., A.R., E.S., J.M.M.) amayahilario@yahoo.es. 2. Medical Oncology (J.M.S.). 3. Neurosurgery (A.P.-N., A.L.), Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain. 4. From the Departments of Radiology (A.H., A.R., E.S., J.M.M.). 5. Neuropathology (A.H.-L.). 6. Radiation Oncology (V.R.-G.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diffuse gliomas are classified as grades II-IV on the basis of histologic features, with prognosis determined mainly by clinical factors and histologic grade supported by molecular markers. Our aim was to evaluate, in patients with diffuse gliomas, the relationship of relative CBV and ADC values to overall survival. In addition, we also propose a prognostic model based on preoperative MR imaging findings that predicts survival independent of histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the preoperative diffusion and perfusion MR imaging in 126 histologically confirmed diffuse gliomas. Median relative CBV and ADC values were selected for quantitative analysis. Survival univariate analysis was made by constructing survival curves by using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparing subgroups by log-rank probability tests. A Cox regression model was made for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The study included 126 diffuse gliomas (median follow-up of 14.5 months). ADC and relative CBV values had a significant influence on overall survival. Median overall survival for patients with ADC < 0.799 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s was <1 year. Multivariate analysis revealed that patient age, relative CBV, and ADC values were associated with survival independent of pathology. The preoperative model provides greater ability to predict survival than that obtained by histologic grade alone. CONCLUSIONS: ADC values had a better correlation with overall survival than relative CBV values. A preoperative prognostic model based on patient age, relative CBV, and ADC values predicted overall survival of patients with diffuse gliomas independent of pathology. This preoperative model provides a more accurate predictor of survival than histologic grade alone.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diffuse gliomas are classified as grades II-IV on the basis of histologic features, with prognosis determined mainly by clinical factors and histologic grade supported by molecular markers. Our aim was to evaluate, in patients with diffuse gliomas, the relationship of relative CBV and ADC values to overall survival. In addition, we also propose a prognostic model based on preoperative MR imaging findings that predicts survival independent of histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the preoperative diffusion and perfusion MR imaging in 126 histologically confirmed diffuse gliomas. Median relative CBV and ADC values were selected for quantitative analysis. Survival univariate analysis was made by constructing survival curves by using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparing subgroups by log-rank probability tests. A Cox regression model was made for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The study included 126 diffuse gliomas (median follow-up of 14.5 months). ADC and relative CBV values had a significant influence on overall survival. Median overall survival for patients with ADC < 0.799 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s was <1 year. Multivariate analysis revealed that patient age, relative CBV, and ADC values were associated with survival independent of pathology. The preoperative model provides greater ability to predict survival than that obtained by histologic grade alone. CONCLUSIONS: ADC values had a better correlation with overall survival than relative CBV values. A preoperative prognostic model based on patient age, relative CBV, and ADC values predicted overall survival of patients with diffuse gliomas independent of pathology. This preoperative model provides a more accurate predictor of survival than histologic grade alone.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; T Hirai; T Okuda; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Komohara; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: K Kono; Y Inoue; K Nakayama; M Shakudo; M Morino; K Ohata; K Wakasa; R Yamada Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2001 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Hilario; A Ramos; A Perez-Nuñez; E Salvador; J M Millan; A Lagares; J M Sepulveda; P Gonzalez-Leon; A Hernandez-Lain; J R Ricoy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: W B Pope; A Lai; R Mehta; H J Kim; J Qiao; J R Young; X Xue; J Goldin; M S Brown; P L Nghiemphu; A Tran; T F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J L Boxerman; D E Prah; E S Paulson; J T Machan; D Bedekar; K M Schmainda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Meng Law; Stanley Yang; James S Babb; Edmond A Knopp; John G Golfinos; David Zagzag; Glyn Johnson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sina Burth; Philipp Kickingereder; Oliver Eidel; Diana Tichy; David Bonekamp; Lukas Weberling; Antje Wick; Sarah Löw; Anne Hertenstein; Martha Nowosielski; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Wolfgang Wick; Martin Bendszus; Alexander Radbruch Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Lei Qin; Xiang Li; Amanda Stroiney; Jinrong Qu; Jeffrey Helgager; David A Reardon; Geoffrey S Young Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: R A Manneh Kopp; J M Sepúlveda-Sánchez; Y Ruano; O Toldos; A Pérez Núñez; D Cantero; A Hilario; A Ramos; G de Velasco; P Sánchez-Gómez; A Hernández-Laín Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 3.405