| Literature DB >> 28942218 |
Adam Autry1, Joanna J Phillips2, Stojan Maleschlijski3, Ritu Roy4, Annette M Molinaro5, Susan M Chang6, Soonmee Cha3, Janine M Lupo3, Sarah J Nelson7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the contrast-enhancing (CE) lesion on T1-weighted MR images is widely used as a surrogate for glioblastoma (GBM), there are also non-enhancing regions of infiltrative tumor within the T2-weighted lesion, which elude radiologic detection. Because non-enhancing GBM (Enh-) challenges clinical patient management as latent disease, this study sought to characterize ex vivo metabolic profiles from Enh- and CE GBM (Enh+) samples, alongside histological and in vivo MR parameters, to assist in defining criteria for estimating total tumor burden.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28942218 PMCID: PMC5612804 DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2017.08.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Oncol ISSN: 1936-5233 Impact factor: 4.803
Figure 1Image-guided tissue from a patient with GBM designated as Enh+ (A) or Enh− (B) on the basis of post-contrast T IRSPGR images. Corresponding CPMG 1H HR-MAS spectra for Enh+ (C) and Enh− (D) tumor samples. NAAG, N-acetylaspartylglutamate.
Summary of Patients and Image-Guided Samples of GBM Classified According to Enhancement Status
| GBM Classification | Number of Patients | Number of Tissue Samples | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enh+ | Enh− | ||
| Enh+ | 34 | 56 | 0 |
| Enh− | 11 | 0 | 19 |
| Mixed | 11 | 14 | 13 |
| 102 (70 | 32) | ||
Enh+, contrast-enhancing; Enh−, non-enhancing.
Figure 2Mean CPMG 1H HR-MAS spectra for image-guided Enh+ (red, n = 70) and Enh− (blue, n = 32) GBM samples. The residual of Enh− minus Enh+ spectra is shown in green.
Regional Summary of Continuous Imaging and Histopathological Parameters
| MR/histology Parameter | Mean ± SE ( | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enh+ | Enh− | |||
| MI | 1.37 ± 0.12 (53) | 2.19 ± 0.35 (23) | 0.57 (0.39–0.83) | 0.003 |
| Cr/PCr | 1.03 ± 0.10 (52) | 1.48 ± 0.15 (21) | 0.44 (0.24–0.82) | 0.009 |
| PE | 1.32 ± 0.12 (53) | 1.88 ± 0.28 (24) | 0.51 (0.28–0.94) | 0.05 |
| Lip | 8.51 ± 1.70 (70) | 4.67 ± 0.53 (32) | 1.19 (0.99–1.43) | 0.07 |
| Gly | 2.21 ± 0.34 (48) | 4.34 ± 1.38 (16) | 0.86 (0.73–1.00) | 0.06 |
| GPC | 0.58 ± 0.07 (46) | 0.81 ± 0.13 (21) | 0.44 (0.18–1.07) | 0.07 |
| nT1c | 1.52 ± 0.01 (68) | 0.91 ± 0.01 (29) | 140 (23–880) | 1 × 10−7 |
| nFL | 1.69 ± 0.01 (67) | 1.61 ± 0.01 (29) | NA | NS |
| nFSE | 2.17 ± 0.01 (63) | 1.96 ± 0.03 (29) | NA | NS |
| nCBV | 2.91 ± 0.48 (28) | 1.39 ± 0.11 (20) | 3.51 (1.46–8.41) | 0.005 |
| nPH | 2.23 ± 0.33 (28) | 1.23 ± 0.09 (20) | 4.31 (1.30–14.30) | 0.02 |
| REC (%) | 75.94 ± 2.46 (28) | 84.27 ± 2.27 (20) | 0.93 (0.87–1.00) | 0.04 |
| Median nADC | 1.54 ± 0.01 (53) | 1.44 ± 0.01 (28) | NA | NS |
| Median nFA | 0.73 ± 0.01 (51) | 0.97 ± 0.01 (25) | 0.14 (0.02–0.55) | 0.01 |
| nCr/PCr | 0.51 ± 0.03 (26) | 0.93 ± 0.10 (11) | 0.22 (0.04–1.26) | 0.09 |
| nLac | 0.52 ± 0.07 (26) | 0.30 ± 0.06 (11) | 17.65 (0.84–370) | 0.07 |
| nLip | 0.86 ± 0.19 (26) | 0.59 ± 0.14 (11) | NA | NS |
| CNI | 6.75 ± 0.90 (26) | 6.69 ± 0.84 (11) | NA | NS |
| MIB-1 (%) | 14.86 ± 0.33 (68) | 12.88 ± 0.23 (30) | NA | NS |
| Cellularity | 286 ± 2 (67) | 287 ± 6 (30) | NA | NS |
The estimated difference in effect between Enh+ and Enh− (reference) GBM is summarized by the odds ratio/P-value from a mixed effects model.
Arbitrary units without correction for T-dependence.
Average number of cells per 200X field.
Figure 3Histopathological parameters are depicted in heatmaps for Enh+ (A) and Enh− (B) GBM samples with deterministic hierarchical clustering applied to samples within each tumor score (TS, 1–3) group. Mean levels of ex vivo metabolites showing statistically significant differences (*) on the basis of enhancement status; error bars represent SE (C).
Analysis of Regional Histopathological Features With Categorical Scoring
| Histology Parameter | Tissue Region | Number of Samples | Frequency Distribution of Categorical Scores (%) | Random Effect Model Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | ||||
| Enh− | 32 | 0 | 25.0 | 31.3 | 43.8 | 1.47 (0.67–3.23) | NS | |
| Enh+ | 70 | 0 | 21.4 | 22.9 | 55.7 | |||
| Enh− | 32 | 90.6 | 3.1 | 6.3 | NA | NA | NA | |
| Enh+ | 70 | 75.7 | 21.4 | 2.9 | NA | |||
| Enh− | 30 | 60.0 | 13.3 | 6.7 | 20.0 | NA | NA | |
| Enh+ | 67 | 37.3 | 14.9 | 20.9 | 26.9 | |||
| Enh− | 32 | 15.6 | 28.1 | 28.1 | 28.1 | 1.53 (0.65–3.56) | NS | |
| Enh+ | 69 | 11.6 | 21.7 | 29.0 | 37.7 | |||
| Enh− | 31 | 12.9 | 25.8 | 16.1 | 45.2 | 0.42 (0.16–1.10) | 0.08 | |
| Enh+ | 70 | 27.1 | 30.0 | 18.6 | 24.3 | |||
| Enh− | 31 | 19.4 | 38.7 | 22.6 | 19.4 | 2.18 (0.92–5.15) | 0.07 | |
| Enh+ | 70 | 11.4 | 30.0 | 17.1 | 41.4 | |||
| Enh− | 31 | 71.0 | 9.7 | 16.1 | 3.2 | 2.14 (0.69–6.65) | 0.18 | |
| Enh+ | 69 | 53.6 | 14.5 | 20.3 | 11.6 | |||
The estimated difference in effect between Enh+ and Enh− (reference) GBM is summarized by the odds ratio/P-value from a random effects model. AD, axonal disruption; MVH, microvascular hyperplasia; NA, not applicable owing to insufficient non-zero scores; NS, not significant.