Ra Gyoung Yoon1, Ho Sung Kim2, Wooyul Paik3, Woo Hyun Shim4, Sang Joon Kim4, Jeong Hoon Kim5. 1. Department of Radiology, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University International St. Mary's Hospital, 25, Simgok-ro 100beon-gil, Seo-gu, Incheon, 22711, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. radhskim@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Dankook Unversity Hospital, San 16-5, Anseo-dong, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si, Chungcheongnam-do, 31116, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether diffusion and perfusion imaging parameters demonstrate different diagnostic values for predicting pseudoprogression between glioblastoma subgroups stratified by O6-mythylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status. METHODS: We enrolled seventy-five glioblastoma patients that had presented with enlarged contrast-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) one month after completing concurrent chemoradiotherapy and undergoing MGMT promoter methylation testing. The imaging parameters included 10 or 90 % histogram cutoffs of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC10), normalized cerebral blood volume (nCBV90), and initial area under the time signal-intensity curve (IAUC90). The results of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) with cross-validation were compared between MGMT methylation and unmethylation groups. RESULTS: MR imaging parameters demonstrated a trend toward higher accuracy in the MGMT promoter methylation group than in the unmethylation group (cross-validated AUCs = 0.70-0.95 and 0.56-0.87, respectively). The combination of MGMT methylation status with imaging parameters improved the AUCs from 0.70 to 0.75-0.90 for both readers in comparison with MGMT methylation status alone. The probability of pseudoprogression was highest (95.7 %) when nCBV90 was below 4.02 in the MGMT promoter methylation group. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging parameters could be stronger predictors of pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients with the methylated MGMT promoter than in patients with the unmethylated MGMT promoter. KEY POINTS: • The glioblastoma subgroup was stratified according to MGMT promoter methylation status. • Diagnostic values of diffusion and perfusion parameters for predicting pseudoprogression were compared. • Imaging parameters showed higher diagnostic accuracy in the MGMT promoter methylation group. • Imaging parameters were independent to MGMT promoter methylation status for predicting pseudoprogression. • Imaging biomarkers might demonstrate different diagnostic values according to MGMT promoter methylation.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether diffusion and perfusion imaging parameters demonstrate different diagnostic values for predicting pseudoprogression between glioblastoma subgroups stratified by O6-mythylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status. METHODS: We enrolled seventy-five glioblastomapatients that had presented with enlarged contrast-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) one month after completing concurrent chemoradiotherapy and undergoing MGMT promoter methylation testing. The imaging parameters included 10 or 90 % histogram cutoffs of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC10), normalized cerebral blood volume (nCBV90), and initial area under the time signal-intensity curve (IAUC90). The results of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) with cross-validation were compared between MGMT methylation and unmethylation groups. RESULTS: MR imaging parameters demonstrated a trend toward higher accuracy in the MGMT promoter methylation group than in the unmethylation group (cross-validated AUCs = 0.70-0.95 and 0.56-0.87, respectively). The combination of MGMT methylation status with imaging parameters improved the AUCs from 0.70 to 0.75-0.90 for both readers in comparison with MGMT methylation status alone. The probability of pseudoprogression was highest (95.7 %) when nCBV90 was below 4.02 in the MGMT promoter methylation group. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging parameters could be stronger predictors of pseudoprogression in glioblastomapatients with the methylated MGMT promoter than in patients with the unmethylated MGMT promoter. KEY POINTS: • The glioblastoma subgroup was stratified according to MGMT promoter methylation status. • Diagnostic values of diffusion and perfusion parameters for predicting pseudoprogression were compared. • Imaging parameters showed higher diagnostic accuracy in the MGMT promoter methylation group. • Imaging parameters were independent to MGMT promoter methylation status for predicting pseudoprogression. • Imaging biomarkers might demonstrate different diagnostic values according to MGMT promoter methylation.
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Isabelle Catalaa; Roland Henry; William P Dillon; Edward E Graves; Tracy R McKnight; Ying Lu; Daniel B Vigneron; Sarah J Nelson Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: A A Brandes; A Rigon; P Zampieri; M Ermani; C Carollo; G Altavilla; S Turazzi; F Chierichetti; M V Florentino Journal: Cancer Date: 1998-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Esteller; J Garcia-Foncillas; E Andion; S N Goodman; O F Hidalgo; V Vanaclocha; S B Baylin; J G Herman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Patricia M LoRusso; Zhanquan He; Zachary DelProposto; Lisa Polin; Thomas H Corbett; Peter Langmuir; Catherine Wheeler; Andrew Stone; Joanna Leadbetter; Anderson J Ryan; David C Blakey; John C Waterton Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lindsay S Rowe; John A Butman; Megan Mackey; Joanna H Shih; Theresa Cooley-Zgela; Holly Ning; Mark R Gilbert; DeeDee K Smart; Kevin Camphausen; Andra V Krauze Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.130