Y S Choi1, D W Kim2, S-K Lee1, J H Chang3, S-G Kang3, E H Kim3, S H Kim4, T H Rim5, S S Ahn6. 1. From the Departments of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science (Y.S.C., S.-K.L., S.S.A.). 2. Department of Policy Research Affairs (D.W.K.), National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. 3. Neurosurgery (J.H.C., S.-G.K., E.H.K.). 4. Pathology (S.H.K.). 5. Ophthalmology (T.H.R.), Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 6. From the Departments of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science (Y.S.C., S.-K.L., S.S.A.) SUNGSOO@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The prognostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with glioblastoma is controversial. We investigated the added prognostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to clinical parameters and molecular biomarkers in patients with glioblastoma by using histogram analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study consisted of 61 patients who underwent preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for glioblastoma. The histogram parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, including volume transfer constant, extravascular extracellular volume fraction, and plasma volume fraction, were calculated from entire enhancing tumors. Univariate analyses for overall survival and progression-free survival were performed with preoperative clinical and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging parameters and postoperative molecular biomarkers. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to build pre- and postoperative models for overall survival and progression-free survival. The performance of models was assessed by calculating the Harrell concordance index. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, patients with higher volume transfer constant and extravascular extracellular volume fraction values showed worse overall survival and progression-free survival, whereas plasma volume fraction showed no significant correlation. In multivariate analyses for overall survival, the fifth percentile value of volume transfer constant and kurtosis of extravascular extracellular volume fraction were independently prognostic in the preoperative model, and kurtosis of volume transfer constant and extravascular extracellular volume fraction were independently prognostic in the postoperative model. For progression-free survival, independent prognostic factors were minimum and fifth percentile values of volume transfer constant and kurtosis of extravascular extracellular volume fraction in the preoperative model and kurtosis of extravascular extracellular volume fraction in the postoperative model. The performance of preoperative models for progression-free survival was significantly improved when minimum or fifth percentile values of volume transfer constant and kurtosis of extravascular extracellular volume fraction were added. CONCLUSIONS: Higher volume transfer constant and extravascular extracellular volume fraction values are associated with worse prognosis, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging may have added prognostic value in combination with preoperative clinical parameters, especially in predicting progression-free survival.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The prognostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with glioblastoma is controversial. We investigated the added prognostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to clinical parameters and molecular biomarkers in patients with glioblastoma by using histogram analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study consisted of 61 patients who underwent preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for glioblastoma. The histogram parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, including volume transfer constant, extravascular extracellular volume fraction, and plasma volume fraction, were calculated from entire enhancing tumors. Univariate analyses for overall survival and progression-free survival were performed with preoperative clinical and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging parameters and postoperative molecular biomarkers. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to build pre- and postoperative models for overall survival and progression-free survival. The performance of models was assessed by calculating the Harrell concordance index. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, patients with higher volume transfer constant and extravascular extracellular volume fraction values showed worse overall survival and progression-free survival, whereas plasma volume fraction showed no significant correlation. In multivariate analyses for overall survival, the fifth percentile value of volume transfer constant and kurtosis of extravascular extracellular volume fraction were independently prognostic in the preoperative model, and kurtosis of volume transfer constant and extravascular extracellular volume fraction were independently prognostic in the postoperative model. For progression-free survival, independent prognostic factors were minimum and fifth percentile values of volume transfer constant and kurtosis of extravascular extracellular volume fraction in the preoperative model and kurtosis of extravascular extracellular volume fraction in the postoperative model. The performance of preoperative models for progression-free survival was significantly improved when minimum or fifth percentile values of volume transfer constant and kurtosis of extravascular extracellular volume fraction were added. CONCLUSIONS: Higher volume transfer constant and extravascular extracellular volume fraction values are associated with worse prognosis, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging may have added prognostic value in combination with preoperative clinical parameters, especially in predicting progression-free survival.
Authors: Meng Law; Sarah Oh; Glyn Johnson; James S Babb; David Zagzag; John Golfinos; Patrick J Kelly Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.654
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: Joonmi Oh; Roland G Henry; Andrea Pirzkall; Ying Lu; Xiaojuan Li; Isabelle Catalaa; Susan Chang; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Y S Choi; S S Ahn; H-J Lee; J H Chang; S-G Kang; E H Kim; S H Kim; S-K Lee Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Hee Soo Kim; Se Lee Kwon; Seung Hong Choi; Inpyeong Hwang; Tae Min Kim; Chul-Kee Park; Sung-Hye Park; Jae-Kyung Won; Il Han Kim; Soon Tae Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jann N Sarkaria; Leland S Hu; Ian F Parney; Deanna H Pafundi; Debra H Brinkmann; Nadia N Laack; Caterina Giannini; Terence C Burns; Sani H Kizilbash; Janice K Laramy; Kristin R Swanson; Timothy J Kaufmann; Paul D Brown; Nathalie Y R Agar; Evanthia Galanis; Jan C Buckner; William F Elmquist Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Michelle M Kim; Yilun Sun; Madhava P Aryal; Hemant A Parmar; Morand Piert; Benjamin Rosen; Charles S Mayo; James M Balter; Matthew Schipper; Nicolette Gabel; Emily M Briceño; Daekeun You; Jason Heth; Wajd Al-Holou; Yoshie Umemura; Denise Leung; Larry Junck; Daniel R Wahl; Theodore S Lawrence; Yue Cao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 8.013