J Khalifa1,2, F Tensaouti3, L Chaltiel4, J-A Lotterie3,5, I Catalaa3,6, M P Sunyach7, D Ibarrola8, G Noël9, G Truc10, P Walker11, N Magné12, M Charissoux13, S Ken3,14, P Peran3,15, I Berry3,5,15, E Cohen-Jonathan Moyal16,17,18, A Laprie3,16,17. 1. INSERM UMR 1214, TONIC (TOulouse NeuroImaging Centre), 31059, Toulouse, France. jonathan.khalifa@hotmail.fr. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud/Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse - Oncopôle, 1 avenue Irène-Joliot Curie, 31100, Toulouse, France. jonathan.khalifa@hotmail.fr. 3. INSERM UMR 1214, TONIC (TOulouse NeuroImaging Centre), 31059, Toulouse, France. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Institut Claudius Regaud/Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse - Oncopôle, 1 avenue Irène-Joliot Curie, 31100, Toulouse, France. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Rangueil, 1 Avenue du Professeur Jean Poulhès, 31400, Toulouse, France. 6. Department of Radiology, CHU Rangueil, 1 Avenue du Professeur Jean Poulhès, 31400, Toulouse, France. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, 28 Rue Laënnec, 69373, Lyon, France. 8. CERMEP - Imagerie du Vivant, Lyon, France. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Paul Strauss, EA 3430, University of Strasbourg, 3 rue de la Porte de l'Hôpital, 67065, Strasbourg, France. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, 1 rue Professeur Marion, 21079, Dijon, France. 11. Laboratory of Electronics, Computer Science and Imaging (Le2I), UMR 6306 CNRS, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de cancérologie Lucien-Neuwirth, 108 bis, avenue Albert-Raimond, 42271, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France. 13. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut du Cancer de Montpellier, 208 avenue des Apothicaires, parc Euromédecine, 34298, Montpellier cedex 5, France. 14. Department of Medical Physics, Institut Claudius Regaud/Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse - Oncopôle, 1 avenue Irène-Joliot Curie, 31100, Toulouse, France. 15. Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, UMR 1214, 31059, Toulouse, France. 16. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud/Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse - Oncopôle, 1 avenue Irène-Joliot Curie, 31100, Toulouse, France. 17. Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, 31000, Toulouse, France. 18. INSERM U1037, Centre de Recherches contre le Cancer de Toulouse, 1 avenue Irène-Joliot Curie, 31100, Toulouse, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify relevant relative cerebral blood volume biomarkers from T2* dynamic-susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging to anticipate glioblastoma progression after chemoradiation. METHODS:Twenty-five patients from a prospective study with glioblastoma, primarily treated by chemoradiation, were included. According to the last follow-up MRI confirmed status, patients were divided into: relapse group (n = 13) and control group (n = 12). The time of last MR acquisition was tend; MR acquisitions performed at tend-2M, tend-4M and tend-6M (respectively 2, 4 and 6 months before tend) were analyzed to extract relevant variations among eleven perfusion biomarkers (B). These variations were assessed through R(B), as the absolute value of the ratio between ∆B from tend-4M to tend-2M and ∆B from tend-6M to tend-4M. The optimal cut-off for R(B) was determined using receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: The fraction of hypoperfused tumor volume (F_hPg) was a relevant biomarker. A ratio R(F_hPg) ≥ 0.61 would have been able to anticipate relapse at the next follow-up with a sensitivity/specificity/accuracy of 92.3 %/63.6 %/79.2 %. High R(F_hPg) (≥0.61) was associated with more relapse at tend compared to low R(F_hPg) (75 % vs 12.5 %, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Iterative analysis of F_hPg from consecutive examinations could provide surrogate markers to predict progression at the next follow-up. KEY POINTS: • Related rCBV biomarkers from DSC were assessed to anticipate GBM progression. • Biomarkers were assessed through their patterns of variation during the follow-up. • The fraction of hypoperfused tumour volume (F_hP g ) seemed to be a relevant biomarker. • An innovative ratio R(F_hP g ) could be an early surrogate marker of relapse. • A significant time gain could be achieved in the management of GBM patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To identify relevant relative cerebral blood volume biomarkers from T2* dynamic-susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging to anticipate glioblastoma progression after chemoradiation. METHODS: Twenty-five patients from a prospective study with glioblastoma, primarily treated by chemoradiation, were included. According to the last follow-up MRI confirmed status, patients were divided into: relapse group (n = 13) and control group (n = 12). The time of last MR acquisition was tend; MR acquisitions performed at tend-2M, tend-4M and tend-6M (respectively 2, 4 and 6 months before tend) were analyzed to extract relevant variations among eleven perfusion biomarkers (B). These variations were assessed through R(B), as the absolute value of the ratio between ∆B from tend-4M to tend-2M and ∆B from tend-6M to tend-4M. The optimal cut-off for R(B) was determined using receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: The fraction of hypoperfused tumor volume (F_hPg) was a relevant biomarker. A ratio R(F_hPg) ≥ 0.61 would have been able to anticipate relapse at the next follow-up with a sensitivity/specificity/accuracy of 92.3 %/63.6 %/79.2 %. High R(F_hPg) (≥0.61) was associated with more relapse at tend compared to low R(F_hPg) (75 % vs 12.5 %, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Iterative analysis of F_hPg from consecutive examinations could provide surrogate markers to predict progression at the next follow-up. KEY POINTS: • Related rCBV biomarkers from DSC were assessed to anticipate GBM progression. • Biomarkers were assessed through their patterns of variation during the follow-up. • The fraction of hypoperfused tumour volume (F_hP g ) seemed to be a relevant biomarker. • An innovative ratio R(F_hP g ) could be an early surrogate marker of relapse. • A significant time gain could be achieved in the management of GBMpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomarker; Glioblastoma; Perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging; Radiotherapy; rCBV
Authors: Hee Ho Chu; Seung Hong Choi; Inseon Ryoo; Soo Chin Kim; Jeong A Yeom; Hwaseon Shin; Seung Chai Jung; A Leum Lee; Tae Jin Yoon; Tae Min Kim; Se-Hoon Lee; Chul-Kee Park; Ji-Hoon Kim; Chul-Ho Sohn; Sung-Hye Park; Il Han Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Hyun J Kim; Jing Huo; Jeffry Alger; Matthew S Brown; David Gjertson; Victor Sai; Jonathan R Young; Leena Tekchandani; Timothy Cloughesy; Paul S Mischel; Albert Lai; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Syed Rahmanuddin; Jonathan Goldin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C R Meyer; J L Boes; B Kim; P H Bland; K R Zasadny; P V Kison; K Koral; K A Frey; R L Wahl Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Kirsten Nielsen; Egill Rostrup; Jette L Frederiksen; Stine Knudsen; Henrik K Mathiesen; Lars G Hanson; Olaf B Paulson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Carsten Krautmacher; Winfried A Willinek; Henriette J Tschampa; Mark Born; Frank Träber; Jürgen Gieseke; Hans J Textor; Hans H Schild; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael H Lev; Yelda Ozsunar; John W Henson; Amjad A Rasheed; Glenn D Barest; Griffith R Harsh; Markus M Fitzek; E Antonio Chiocca; James D Rabinov; Andrew N Csavoy; Bruce R Rosen; Fred H Hochberg; Pamela W Schaefer; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B M Ellingson; S Sahebjam; H J Kim; W B Pope; R J Harris; D C Woodworth; A Lai; P L Nghiemphu; W P Mason; T F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Marta Scorsetti; Pierina Navarria; Federico Pessina; Anna Maria Ascolese; Giuseppe D'Agostino; Stefano Tomatis; Fiorenza De Rose; Elisa Villa; Giulia Maggi; Matteo Simonelli; Elena Clerici; Riccardo Soffietti; Armando Santoro; Luca Cozzi; Lorenzo Bello Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Peter Baumgarten; Johanna Quick-Weller; Florian Gessler; Marlies Wagner; Julia Tichy; Marie-Therese Forster; Christian Foerch; Volker Seifert; Michel Mittelbronn; Christian Senft Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Fatima Tensaouti; Jonathan Khalifa; Amélie Lusque; Benjamin Plas; Jean Albert Lotterie; Isabelle Berry; Anne Laprie; Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan Moyal; Vincent Lubrano Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Melissa A Prah; Mona M Al-Gizawiy; Wade M Mueller; Elizabeth J Cochran; Raymond G Hoffmann; Jennifer M Connelly; Kathleen M Schmainda Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Bob L Hou; Sijin Wen; Gennadiy A Katsevman; Hui Liu; Ogaga Urhie; Ryan C Turner; Jeffrey Carpenter; Sanjay Bhatia Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Adrian Ion-Mărgineanu; Sofie Van Cauter; Diana M Sima; Frederik Maes; Stefan Sunaert; Uwe Himmelreich; Sabine Van Huffel Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 4.677