Kai Wang1, Yinyan Wang1, Xing Fan1, Jiangfei Wang1, Guilin Li1, Jieling Ma1, Jun Ma1, Tao Jiang1, Jianping Dai1. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Beijing Tian Tan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (K.W., J.M., J.M., J.D.); Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tian Tan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (Y.W., X.F., J.W., T.J.); Department of Pathology, Beijing Tian Tan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (G.L.); Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (Y.W., X.F., T.J., J.D.); Center of Brain Tumor, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing, China (T.J.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiological characteristics may reflect the biological features of brain tumors and may be associated with genetic alterations that occur in tumorigenesis. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between radiological features and IDH1 status as well as their predictive value for survival of glioblastoma patients. METHODS: The clinical information and MR images of 280 patients with histologically confirmed glioblastoma were retrospectively reviewed. The radiological characteristics of tumors were examined on MR images, and the IDH1 status was determined using DNA sequencing for all cases. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model were used to identify prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: The IDH1 mutation was associated with longer progression-free survival (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.602) and overall survival (P = .018; hazard ratio, 0.554). In patients with the IDH1 mutation, tumor contrast enhancement and peritumoral edema indicated worse progression-free survival (P = .015 and P = .024, respectively) and worse overall survival (P = .024 and P = .032, respectively). For tumors with contrast enhancement, multifocal contrast enhancement of the tumor lesion was associated with poor progression-free survival (P = .002) and poor overall survival (P = .010) in patients with wild-type IDH1 tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the radiological features and IDH1 status of a tumor allows more accurate prediction of survival outcomes in glioblastoma patients. The complementary roles of genetic changes and radiological features of tumors should be considered in future studies.
BACKGROUND: Radiological characteristics may reflect the biological features of brain tumors and may be associated with genetic alterations that occur in tumorigenesis. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between radiological features and IDH1 status as well as their predictive value for survival of glioblastomapatients. METHODS: The clinical information and MR images of 280 patients with histologically confirmed glioblastoma were retrospectively reviewed. The radiological characteristics of tumors were examined on MR images, and the IDH1 status was determined using DNA sequencing for all cases. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model were used to identify prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: The IDH1 mutation was associated with longer progression-free survival (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.602) and overall survival (P = .018; hazard ratio, 0.554). In patients with the IDH1 mutation, tumor contrast enhancement and peritumoral edema indicated worse progression-free survival (P = .015 and P = .024, respectively) and worse overall survival (P = .024 and P = .032, respectively). For tumors with contrast enhancement, multifocal contrast enhancement of the tumor lesion was associated with poor progression-free survival (P = .002) and poor overall survival (P = .010) in patients with wild-type IDH1 tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the radiological features and IDH1 status of a tumor allows more accurate prediction of survival outcomes in glioblastomapatients. The complementary roles of genetic changes and radiological features of tumors should be considered in future studies.
Authors: Jun Kong; Lee A D Cooper; Fusheng Wang; David A Gutman; Jingjing Gao; Candace Chisolm; Ashish Sharma; Tony Pan; Erwin G Van Meir; Tahsin M Kurc; Carlos S Moreno; Joel H Saltz; Daniel J Brat Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Jenny H Chen; Jun Dong; Marc R J Carlson; Alla Perlina; Timothy F Cloughesy; Linda M Liau; Paul S Mischel; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Albert Lai; Stanley F Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Maximilian Diehn; Christine Nardini; David S Wang; Susan McGovern; Mahesh Jayaraman; Yu Liang; Kenneth Aldape; Soonmee Cha; Michael D Kuo Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 11.205
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: Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Matthew D Wood; Byung Se Choi; Marc C Mabray; Nicholas A Butowski; Tarik Tihan; Soonmee Cha Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sohil H Patel; Prem P Batchala; Thomas J Eluvathingal Muttikkal; Sergio S Ferrante; James T Patrie; Camilo E Fadul; David Schiff; M Beatriz Lopes; Rajan Jain Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Nadia Senhaji; Sara Louati; Laila Chbani; Hind El Fatemi; Nawal Hammas; Karima Mikou; Mustapha Maaroufi; Mohammed Benzagmout; Said Boujraf; Sanae El Bardai; Marine Giry; Yannick Marie; Mohammed Chaoui El Faiz; Karima Mokhtari; Ahmed Idbaih; Afaf Amarti; Sanae Bennis Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Robin W Jansen; Paul van Amstel; Roland M Martens; Irsan E Kooi; Pieter Wesseling; Adrianus J de Langen; Catharina W Menke-Van der Houven van Oordt; Bernard H E Jansen; Annette C Moll; Josephine C Dorsman; Jonas A Castelijns; Pim de Graaf; Marcus C de Jong Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-04-13