Yinyan Wang1,2, Kai Wang3, Jiangfei Wang1, Shaowu Li3, Jun Ma3, Jianping Dai2,3, Tao Jiang4,5. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 2. Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, 6, Tiantanxili, Beijing, 100050, China. 3. Department of Neuroradiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. taojiang1964@163.com. 5. Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, 6, Tiantanxili, Beijing, 100050, China. taojiang1964@163.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Contrast enhancement observable on magnetic resonance (MR) images reflects the destructive features of malignant gliomas. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between radiologic patterns of tumor enhancement, extent of resection, and prognosis in patients with anaplastic gliomas (AGs). METHODS: Clinical data from 268 patients with histologically confirmed AGs were retrospectively analyzed. Contrast enhancement patterns were classified based on preoperative T1-contrast MR images. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic value of MR enhancement patterns on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The pattern of tumor contrast enhancement was associated with the extent of surgical resection in AGs. A gross total resection was more likely to be achieved for AGs with focal enhancement than those with diffuse (p = 0.001) or ring-like (p = 0.024) enhancement. Additionally, patients with focal-enhanced AGs had a significantly longer PFS and OS than those with diffuse (log-rank, p = 0.025 and p = 0.031, respectively) or ring-like (log-rank, p = 0.008 and p = 0.011, respectively) enhanced AGs. Furthermore, multivariate analysis identified the pattern of tumor enhancement as a significant predictor of PFS (p = 0.016, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.485) and OS (p = 0.030, HR = 1.446). CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that the contrast enhancement pattern on preoperative MR images was associated with the extent of resection and predictive of survival outcomes in AG patients.
INTRODUCTION: Contrast enhancement observable on magnetic resonance (MR) images reflects the destructive features of malignant gliomas. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between radiologic patterns of tumor enhancement, extent of resection, and prognosis in patients with anaplastic gliomas (AGs). METHODS: Clinical data from 268 patients with histologically confirmed AGs were retrospectively analyzed. Contrast enhancement patterns were classified based on preoperative T1-contrast MR images. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic value of MR enhancement patterns on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The pattern of tumor contrast enhancement was associated with the extent of surgical resection in AGs. A gross total resection was more likely to be achieved for AGs with focal enhancement than those with diffuse (p = 0.001) or ring-like (p = 0.024) enhancement. Additionally, patients with focal-enhanced AGs had a significantly longer PFS and OS than those with diffuse (log-rank, p = 0.025 and p = 0.031, respectively) or ring-like (log-rank, p = 0.008 and p = 0.011, respectively) enhanced AGs. Furthermore, multivariate analysis identified the pattern of tumor enhancement as a significant predictor of PFS (p = 0.016, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.485) and OS (p = 0.030, HR = 1.446). CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that the contrast enhancement pattern on preoperative MR images was associated with the extent of resection and predictive of survival outcomes in AG patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anaplastic glioma; Contrast enhancement; Magnetic resonance imaging; Pattern; Survival
Authors: G Evren Keles; Edward F Chang; Kathleen R Lamborn; Tarik Tihan; Chih-Ju Chang; Susan M Chang; Mitchel S Berger Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Rajiv Mangla; Daniel Thomas Ginat; Shervin Kamalian; Michael T Milano; David N Korones; Kevin A Walter; Sven Ekholm Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Michael D Jenkinson; Daniel G du Plessis; Trevor S Smith; Kathy A Joyce; Peter C Warnke; Carol Walker Journal: Brain Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Heidi S Phillips; Samir Kharbanda; Ruihuan Chen; William F Forrest; Robert H Soriano; Thomas D Wu; Anjan Misra; Janice M Nigro; Howard Colman; Liliana Soroceanu; P Mickey Williams; Zora Modrusan; Burt G Feuerstein; Ken Aldape Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Kourosh M Naeini; Whitney B Pope; Timothy F Cloughesy; Robert J Harris; Albert Lai; Ascia Eskin; Reshmi Chowdhury; Heidi S Phillips; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Yalda Behbahanian; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: David A Gutman; Lee A D Cooper; Scott N Hwang; Chad A Holder; Jingjing Gao; Tarun D Aurora; William D Dunn; Lisa Scarpace; Tom Mikkelsen; Rajan Jain; Max Wintermark; Manal Jilwan; Prashant Raghavan; Erich Huang; Robert J Clifford; Pattanasak Mongkolwat; Vladimir Kleper; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Pascal O Zinn; Carlos S Moreno; Carl Jaffe; Rivka Colen; Daniel L Rubin; Joel Saltz; Adam Flanders; Daniel J Brat Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Je Beom Hong; Tae Hoon Roh; Seok-Gu Kang; Se Hoon Kim; Ju Hyung Moon; Eui Hyun Kim; Sung Soo Ahn; Hye Jin Choi; Jaeho Cho; Chang-Ok Suh; Jong Hee Chang Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.036