OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MR perfusion in elderly patients with glioblastomas (GBM). METHODS: Thirty five patients aged ≥65 and 35 aged <65 years old, (referred to as elderly and younger, respectively) were included in this retrospective study. The median relative cerebral volume (rCBV) from the enhancing region (rCBVER-Med) and immediate peritumoral region (rCBVIPR-Med) and maximum rCBV from the enhancing region of the tumor (rCBVER-Max) were compared and correlated with survival data. Analysis was repeated after rCBVs were dichotomized into high and low values and after excluding elderly patients who did not receive postoperative chemoradiation (34.3%). Kaplan-Meyer survival curves and parametric and semi-parametric regression tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: All rCBV parameters were higher in elderly compared to younger patients (p < 0.05). After adjustment for age, none were independently associated with shorter survival (p > 0.05). After rCBV dichotomization into high and low values, high rCBV in elderly was independently associated with shorter survival compared to low rCBV in elderly, or any rCBV in younger patients (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: rCBV can be an imaging biomarker to identify a subgroup of GBM patients in the elderly with worse prognosis compared to others. KEY POINTS: • GBM perfusion parameters are higher in elderly compared to younger patients. • rCBV can identify a subgroup of elderly patients with worse prognosis. • rCBV can be an imaging biomarker for prognostication in GBM. • The identified elderly patients may benefit from anti-angiogenic treatment.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MR perfusion in elderly patients with glioblastomas (GBM). METHODS: Thirty five patients aged ≥65 and 35 aged <65 years old, (referred to as elderly and younger, respectively) were included in this retrospective study. The median relative cerebral volume (rCBV) from the enhancing region (rCBVER-Med) and immediate peritumoral region (rCBVIPR-Med) and maximum rCBV from the enhancing region of the tumor (rCBVER-Max) were compared and correlated with survival data. Analysis was repeated after rCBVs were dichotomized into high and low values and after excluding elderly patients who did not receive postoperative chemoradiation (34.3%). Kaplan-Meyer survival curves and parametric and semi-parametric regression tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: All rCBV parameters were higher in elderly compared to younger patients (p < 0.05). After adjustment for age, none were independently associated with shorter survival (p > 0.05). After rCBV dichotomization into high and low values, high rCBV in elderly was independently associated with shorter survival compared to low rCBV in elderly, or any rCBV in younger patients (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION:rCBV can be an imaging biomarker to identify a subgroup of GBM patients in the elderly with worse prognosis compared to others. KEY POINTS: • GBM perfusion parameters are higher in elderly compared to younger patients. • rCBV can identify a subgroup of elderly patients with worse prognosis. • rCBV can be an imaging biomarker for prognostication in GBM. • The identified elderly patients may benefit from anti-angiogenic treatment.
Authors: Normand Laperriere; Michael Weller; Roger Stupp; James R Perry; Alba A Brandes; Wolfgang Wick; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; T Hirai; T Okuda; Y Shigematsu; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tracy T Batchelor; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Kyrre E Emblem; Dan G Duda; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Matija Snuderl; Marek Ancukiewicz; Pavlina Polaskova; Marco C Pinho; Dominique Jennings; Scott R Plotkin; Andrew S Chi; April F Eichler; Jorg Dietrich; Fred H Hochberg; Christine Lu-Emerson; A John Iafrate; S Percy Ivy; Bruce R Rosen; Jay S Loeffler; Patrick Y Wen; A Greg Sorensen; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jigisha P Thakkar; Therese A Dolecek; Craig Horbinski; Quinn T Ostrom; Donita D Lightner; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; John L Villano Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Serdar Bozdag; Aiguo Li; Gregory Riddick; Yuri Kotliarov; Mehmet Baysan; Fabio M Iwamoto; Margaret C Cam; Svetlana Kotliarova; Howard A Fine Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jerrold L Boxerman; Chad C Quarles; Leland S Hu; Bradley J Erickson; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Marion Smits; Timothy J Kaufmann; Daniel P Barboriak; Raymond H Huang; Wolfgang Wick; Michael Weller; Evanthia Galanis; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Lalitha Shankar; Paula Jacobs; Caroline Chung; Martin J van den Bent; Susan Chang; W K Al Yung; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Mark R Gilbert; Bruce R Rosen; Benjamin M Ellingson; Kathleen M Schmainda Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Saima Rathore; Hamed Akbari; Martin Rozycki; Kalil G Abdullah; MacLean P Nasrallah; Zev A Binder; Ramana V Davuluri; Robert A Lustig; Nadia Dahmane; Michel Bilello; Donald M O'Rourke; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Vittorio Stumpo; Lelio Guida; Jacopo Bellomo; Christiaan Hendrik Bas Van Niftrik; Martina Sebök; Moncef Berhouma; Andrea Bink; Michael Weller; Zsolt Kulcsar; Luca Regli; Jorn Fierstra Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 6.639