Javier E Villanueva-Meyer1, Matthew D Wood2, Byung Se Choi1, Marc C Mabray1, Nicholas A Butowski3, Tarik Tihan2, Soonmee Cha1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 350 Parnassus, 370H, San Francisco, CA 94143. 2. 2 Department of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 3. 3 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Grade II diffuse gliomas (DGs) with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations are associated with better prognosis than their IDH wild-type counterparts. We sought to determine the MRI characteristics associated with IDH mutational status and ascertain whether MRI considered in combination with IDH mutational status can better predict the clinical outcomes of grade II DGs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative MRI examinations were retrospectively studied for qualitative tumor characteristics, including location, extent, cortical involvement, margin sharpness, cystic component, mineralization or hemorrhage, and contrast enhancement. Quantitative diffusion and perfusion metrics were also assessed. Logistic regression and ROC analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between MRI features and IDH mutational status. The association between IDH mutational status, 1p19q codeletion, MRI features, extent of resection, and clinical outcomes was assessed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 100 grade II DGs, 78 were IDH mutant and 22 were IDH wild type. IDH wild-type tumors were associated with older age, multifocality, brainstem involvement, lack of cystic change, and a lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Multivariable regression showed that age older than 45 years as well as low minimum ADC (ADCmin), mean ADC, and maximum ADC values were independently associated with IDH mutational status. Of these, an ADCmin threshold of 0.9 × 10-3 mm2/s or less provided the greatest sensitivity and specificity (91% and 76%, respectively) in defining IDH wild-type grade II DGs. Combining low ADCmin with IDH wild-type status conferred worse outcomes than did IDH wild-type status alone. CONCLUSION: IDH wild-type grade II DGs are associated with a lower ADC and poor clinical outcomes. Combining IDH mutational status and ADC may allow more accurate prediction of clinical outcomes for patients with grade II DGs.
OBJECTIVE: Grade II diffuse gliomas (DGs) with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations are associated with better prognosis than their IDH wild-type counterparts. We sought to determine the MRI characteristics associated with IDH mutational status and ascertain whether MRI considered in combination with IDH mutational status can better predict the clinical outcomes of grade II DGs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative MRI examinations were retrospectively studied for qualitative tumor characteristics, including location, extent, cortical involvement, margin sharpness, cystic component, mineralization or hemorrhage, and contrast enhancement. Quantitative diffusion and perfusion metrics were also assessed. Logistic regression and ROC analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between MRI features and IDH mutational status. The association between IDH mutational status, 1p19q codeletion, MRI features, extent of resection, and clinical outcomes was assessed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 100 grade II DGs, 78 were IDH mutant and 22 were IDH wild type. IDH wild-type tumors were associated with older age, multifocality, brainstem involvement, lack of cystic change, and a lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Multivariable regression showed that age older than 45 years as well as low minimum ADC (ADCmin), mean ADC, and maximum ADC values were independently associated with IDH mutational status. Of these, an ADCmin threshold of 0.9 × 10-3 mm2/s or less provided the greatest sensitivity and specificity (91% and 76%, respectively) in defining IDH wild-type grade II DGs. Combining low ADCmin with IDH wild-type status conferred worse outcomes than did IDH wild-type status alone. CONCLUSION:IDH wild-type grade II DGs are associated with a lower ADC and poor clinical outcomes. Combining IDH mutational status and ADC may allow more accurate prediction of clinical outcomes for patients with grade II DGs.
Authors: K Yamashita; A Hiwatashi; O Togao; K Kikuchi; R Hatae; K Yoshimoto; M Mizoguchi; S O Suzuki; T Yoshiura; H Honda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David A Solomon; Matthew D Wood; Tarik Tihan; Andrew W Bollen; Nalin Gupta; Joanna J J Phillips; Arie Perry Journal: Brain Pathol Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 6.508
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Elizabeth B Claus; Kyle M Walsh; John K Wiencke; Annette M Molinaro; Joseph L Wiemels; Joellen M Schildkraut; Melissa L Bondy; Mitchel Berger; Robert Jenkins; Margaret Wrensch Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Marco Essig; Thanh Binh Nguyen; Mark S Shiroishi; Marc Saake; James M Provenzale; David S Enterline; Nicoletta Anzalone; Arnd Dörfler; Àlex Rovira; Max Wintermark; Meng Law Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Young-Ho Kim; Sumihito Nobusawa; Michel Mittelbronn; Werner Paulus; Benjamin Brokinkel; Kathy Keyvani; Ulrich Sure; Karsten Wrede; Yoichi Nakazato; Yuko Tanaka; Anne Vital; Luigi Mariani; Robert Stawski; Takuya Watanabe; Umberto De Girolami; Paul Kleihues; Hiroko Ohgaki Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 5.770
Authors: M D Maldonado; P Batchala; D Ornan; C Fadul; D Schiff; J N Itri; R Jain; S H Patel Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Maike Kern; Timo A Auer; Uli Fehrenbach; Yasemin Tanyildizi; Thomas Picht; Martin Misch; Edzard Wiener Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2020-01-19
Authors: Minjae Kim; So Yeong Jung; Ji Eun Park; Yeongheun Jo; Seo Young Park; Soo Jung Nam; Jeong Hoon Kim; Ho Sung Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S C Thust; J A Maynard; M Benenati; S J Wastling; L Mancini; Z Jaunmuktane; S Brandner; H R Jäger Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sahil S Nalawade; Fang F Yu; Chandan Ganesh Bangalore Yogananda; Gowtham K Murugesan; Bhavya R Shah; Marco C Pinho; Benjamin C Wagner; Yin Xi; Bruce Mickey; Toral R Patel; Baowei Fei; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Joseph A Maldjian Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2022-01-27
Authors: Eike Steidl; Karl-Josef Langen; Sarah Abu Hmeidan; Nenad Polomac; Christian P Filss; Norbert Galldiks; Philipp Lohmann; Fee Keil; Katharina Filipski; Felix M Mottaghy; Nadim Jon Shah; Joachim P Steinbach; Elke Hattingen; Gabriele D Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236