A Lasocki1, A Tsui2, M A Tacey3, K J Drummond4, K M Field5, F Gaillard6. 1. From the Department of Cancer Imaging (A.L.), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia arian.lasocki@petermac.org. 2. Departments of Pathology (A.T.). 3. Melbourne EpiCentre (M.A.T.), Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne and The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 4. Neurosurgery (K.J.D.). 5. Medical Oncology (K.M.F.). 6. Radiology (F.G.), The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Histologic grading of intracranial astrocytomas is affected by sampling error and substantial inter- and intraobserver variability. We proposed that incorporating MR imaging into grading will predict patient survival more accurately than histopathology alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a new diagnosis of World Health Organization grades II-IV astrocytoma or mixed oligoastrocytoma diagnosed between September 2007 and December 2010 were identified. Two hundred forty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. Preoperative MRIs were independently reviewed by 2 readers blinded to the histologic grade, and an MR imaging grade was given. The MR imaging and histopathologic grades were compared with patient survival. RESULTS: Patients with grade II or III astrocytomas on histology but evidence of necrosis on MR imaging (consistent with a grade IV tumor) had significantly worse survival than patients with the same histology but no evidence of necrosis on MR imaging (P = .002 for grade II histology and P = .029 for grade III). Their survival was not significantly different from that in patients with grade IV tumors on histology (P = .164 and P = .385, respectively); this outcome suggests that all or most are likely to have truly been grade IV tumors. MR imaging evidence of necrosis was less frequent in grade II and III oligoastrocytomas, preventing adequate subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging can improve grading of intracranial astrocytomas by identifying patients suspected of being undergraded by histology, with high interobserver agreement. This finding has the potential to optimize patient management, for example, by encouraging more aggressive treatment earlier in the patient's course.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Histologic grading of intracranial astrocytomas is affected by sampling error and substantial inter- and intraobserver variability. We proposed that incorporating MR imaging into grading will predict patient survival more accurately than histopathology alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with a new diagnosis of World Health Organization grades II-IV astrocytoma or mixed oligoastrocytoma diagnosed between September 2007 and December 2010 were identified. Two hundred forty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. Preoperative MRIs were independently reviewed by 2 readers blinded to the histologic grade, and an MR imaging grade was given. The MR imaging and histopathologic grades were compared with patient survival. RESULTS:Patients with grade II or III astrocytomas on histology but evidence of necrosis on MR imaging (consistent with a grade IV tumor) had significantly worse survival than patients with the same histology but no evidence of necrosis on MR imaging (P = .002 for grade II histology and P = .029 for grade III). Their survival was not significantly different from that in patients with grade IV tumors on histology (P = .164 and P = .385, respectively); this outcome suggests that all or most are likely to have truly been grade IV tumors. MR imaging evidence of necrosis was less frequent in grade II and III oligoastrocytomas, preventing adequate subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging can improve grading of intracranial astrocytomas by identifying patients suspected of being undergraded by histology, with high interobserver agreement. This finding has the potential to optimize patient management, for example, by encouraging more aggressive treatment earlier in the patient's course.
Authors: K Pinker; I M Noebauer-Huhmann; I Stavrou; R Hoeftberger; P Szomolanyi; G Karanikas; M Weber; A Stadlbauer; E Knosp; K Friedrich; S Trattnig Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: W Möller-Hartmann; S Herminghaus; T Krings; G Marquardt; H Lanfermann; U Pilatus; F E Zanella Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2002-02-21 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: H R Arvinda; C Kesavadas; P S Sarma; B Thomas; V V Radhakrishnan; A K Gupta; T R Kapilamoorthy; S Nair Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Arian Lasocki; Frank Gaillard; Mark A Tacey; Katharine J Drummond; Stephen L Stuckey Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Brendan J McCullough; Valerie Ader; Brian Aguedan; Xu Feng; Daniel Susanto; Tara L Benkers; John W Henson; Marc Mayberg; Charles S Cobbs; Ryder P Gwinn; Stephen J Monteith; David W Newell; Johnny Delashaw; Sarah J Fouke; Steven Rostad; Bart P Keogh Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Arian Lasocki; Michael E Buckland; Katharine J Drummond; Heng Wei; Jing Xie; Michael Christie; Andrew Neal; Frank Gaillard Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Ryan C Bahar; Sara Merkaj; Gabriel I Cassinelli Petersen; Niklas Tillmanns; Harry Subramanian; Waverly Rose Brim; Tal Zeevi; Lawrence Staib; Eve Kazarian; MingDe Lin; Khaled Bousabarah; Anita J Huttner; Andrej Pala; Seyedmehdi Payabvash; Jana Ivanidze; Jin Cui; Ajay Malhotra; Mariam S Aboian Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 5.738