G Çoban1, S Mohan2, F Kural1, S Wang2, D M O'Rourke3, H Poptani4. 1. From the Department of Radiology (G.Ç., F.K.), Baskent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey Departments of Radiology (G.Ç., S.M., F.K., S.W., H.P.). 2. Departments of Radiology (G.Ç., S.M., F.K., S.W., H.P.). 3. Neurosurgery (D.M.O.), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Departments of Radiology (G.Ç., S.M., F.K., S.W., H.P.) Harish.Poptani@liverpool.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prediction of survival in patients with glioblastomas is important for individualized treatment planning. This study aimed to assess the prognostic utility of presurgical dynamic susceptibility contrast and diffusion-weighted imaging for overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging data from pathologically proved glioblastomas between June 2006 to December 2013 in 58 patients (mean age, 62.7 years; age range, 22-89 years) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into long survival (≥15 months) and short survival (<15 months) groups, depending on overall survival time. Patients underwent dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion and DWI before surgery and were treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The maximum relative cerebral blood volume and minimum mean diffusivity values were measured from the enhancing part of the tumor. RESULTS: Maximum relative cerebral blood volume values in patients with short survival were significantly higher compared with those who demonstrated long survival (P < .05). No significant difference was observed in the minimum mean diffusivity between short and long survivors. Receiver operator curve analysis demonstrated that a maximum relative cerebral blood volume cutoff value of 5.79 differentiated patients with low and high survival with an area under the curve of 0.93, sensitivity of 0.89, and specificity of 0.90 (P < .001), while a minimum mean diffusivity cutoff value of 8.35 × 10(-4)mm(2)/s had an area under the curve of 0.55, sensitivity of 0.71, and specificity of 0.47 (P > .05) in separating the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum relative cerebral blood volume may be used as a prognostic marker of overall survival in patients with glioblastomas.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prediction of survival in patients with glioblastomas is important for individualized treatment planning. This study aimed to assess the prognostic utility of presurgical dynamic susceptibility contrast and diffusion-weighted imaging for overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging data from pathologically proved glioblastomas between June 2006 to December 2013 in 58 patients (mean age, 62.7 years; age range, 22-89 years) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into long survival (≥15 months) and short survival (<15 months) groups, depending on overall survival time. Patients underwent dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion and DWI before surgery and were treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The maximum relative cerebral blood volume and minimum mean diffusivity values were measured from the enhancing part of the tumor. RESULTS: Maximum relative cerebral blood volume values in patients with short survival were significantly higher compared with those who demonstrated long survival (P < .05). No significant difference was observed in the minimum mean diffusivity between short and long survivors. Receiver operator curve analysis demonstrated that a maximum relative cerebral blood volume cutoff value of 5.79 differentiated patients with low and high survival with an area under the curve of 0.93, sensitivity of 0.89, and specificity of 0.90 (P < .001), while a minimum mean diffusivity cutoff value of 8.35 × 10(-4)mm(2)/s had an area under the curve of 0.55, sensitivity of 0.71, and specificity of 0.47 (P > .05) in separating the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum relative cerebral blood volume may be used as a prognostic marker of overall survival in patients with glioblastomas.
Authors: A Pierallini; M Bonamini; P Pantano; F Palmeggiani; M Raguso; M F Osti; G Anaveri; L Bozzao Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Edward G Shaw; Stephen B Tatter; Glenn J Lesser; Thomas L Ellis; Constance A Stanton; Volker W Stieber Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Soonmee Cha; Tarik Tihan; Forrest Crawford; Nancy J Fischbein; Susan Chang; Andrew Bollen; Sarah J Nelson; Michael Prados; Mitchel S Berger; William P Dillon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-02 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: Xin J Qiao; Hyun Grace Kim; Danny J J Wang; Noriko Salamon; Michael Linetsky; Ali Sepahdari; Benjamin M Ellingson; Whitney B Pope Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2017-10-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: K Ina Ly; Bella Vakulenko-Lagun; Kyrre E Emblem; Yangming Ou; Xiao Da; Rebecca A Betensky; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Dan G Duda; Rakesh K Jain; Andrew S Chi; Scott R Plotkin; Tracy T Batchelor; Gregory Sorensen; Bruce R Rosen; Elizabeth R Gerstner Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 4.379