Eun Kyoung Hong1, Seung Hong Choi2,3,4, Dong Jae Shin1, Sang Won Jo1, Roh-Eul Yoo1, Koung Mi Kang1, Tae Jin Yun1, Ji-Hoon Kim1, Chul-Ho Sohn1, Sung-Hye Park5, Jae-Kyung Won5, Tae Min Kim6, Chul-Kee Park7, Il Han Kim8, Soon Tae Lee9. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. verocay@snuh.org. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. verocay@snuh.org. 4. Center for Nanoparticle Research, Institute for Basic Science (IBS), Seoul, Republic of Korea. verocay@snuh.org. 5. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 9. Department of Neurology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between MR imaging features and major genomic profiles in glioblastoma. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative imaging features such as volumetrics and histogram analysis from normalised CBV (nCBV) and ADC (nADC) were evaluated based on both T2WI and CET1WI. The imaging parameters of different genetic profile groups were compared and regression analyses were used for identifying imaging-molecular associations. Progression-free survival (PFS) was analysed by a Kaplan-Meier test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: An IDH mutation was observed in 18/176 patients, and ATRX loss was positive in 17/158 of the IDH-wt cases. The IDH-mut group showed a larger volume on T2WI and a higher volume ratio between T2WI and CET1WI than the IDH-wt group (p < 0.05). In the IDH-mut group, higher mean nADC values were observed compared with the IDH-wt tumours (p < 0.05). Among the IDH-wt tumours, IDH-wt, ATRX-loss tumours revealed higher 5th percentile nADC values than the IDH-wt, ATRX-noloss tumours (p = 0.03). PFS was the longest in the IDH-mut group, followed by the IDH-wt, ATRX-loss groups and the IDH-wt, ATRX-noloss groups, consecutively (p < 0.05). We found significant associations of PFS with the genetic profiles and imaging parameters. CONCLUSION: Major genetic profiles of glioblastoma showed a significant association with MR imaging features, along with some genetic profiles, which are independent prognostic parameters for GBM. KEY POINTS: • Significant correlation exists between radiological parameters such as volumetric and ADC values and major genomic profiles such as IDH mutation and ATRX loss status • Radiological parameters such as the ADC value were feasible predictors of glioblastoma patients' prognosis • Imaging features can predict major genomic profiles of the tumours and the prognosis of glioblastoma patients.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between MR imaging features and major genomic profiles in glioblastoma. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative imaging features such as volumetrics and histogram analysis from normalised CBV (nCBV) and ADC (nADC) were evaluated based on both T2WI and CET1WI. The imaging parameters of different genetic profile groups were compared and regression analyses were used for identifying imaging-molecular associations. Progression-free survival (PFS) was analysed by a Kaplan-Meier test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: An IDH mutation was observed in 18/176 patients, and ATRX loss was positive in 17/158 of the IDH-wt cases. The IDH-mut group showed a larger volume on T2WI and a higher volume ratio between T2WI and CET1WI than the IDH-wt group (p < 0.05). In the IDH-mut group, higher mean nADC values were observed compared with the IDH-wt tumours (p < 0.05). Among the IDH-wt tumours, IDH-wt, ATRX-loss tumours revealed higher 5th percentile nADC values than the IDH-wt, ATRX-noloss tumours (p = 0.03). PFS was the longest in the IDH-mut group, followed by the IDH-wt, ATRX-loss groups and the IDH-wt, ATRX-noloss groups, consecutively (p < 0.05). We found significant associations of PFS with the genetic profiles and imaging parameters. CONCLUSION: Major genetic profiles of glioblastoma showed a significant association with MR imaging features, along with some genetic profiles, which are independent prognostic parameters for GBM. KEY POINTS: • Significant correlation exists between radiological parameters such as volumetric and ADC values and major genomic profiles such as IDH mutation and ATRX loss status • Radiological parameters such as the ADC value were feasible predictors of glioblastomapatients' prognosis • Imaging features can predict major genomic profiles of the tumours and the prognosis of glioblastomapatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
ATRX protein, human; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Glioblastoma; Isocitrate dehydrogenase; Magnetic resonance imaging
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: David E Reuss; Felix Sahm; Daniel Schrimpf; Benedikt Wiestler; David Capper; Christian Koelsche; Leonille Schweizer; Andrey Korshunov; David T W Jones; Volker Hovestadt; Michel Mittelbronn; Jens Schittenhelm; Christel Herold-Mende; Andreas Unterberg; Michael Platten; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick; Stefan M Pfister; Andreas von Deimling Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Clifford J Belden; Pablo A Valdes; Cong Ran; David A Pastel; Brent T Harris; Camilo E Fadul; Mark A Israel; Keith Paulsen; David W Roberts Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Jenny H Chen; Jun Dong; Marc R J Carlson; Alla Perlina; Timothy F Cloughesy; Linda M Liau; Paul S Mischel; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Albert Lai; Stanley F Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Maximilian Diehn; Christine Nardini; David S Wang; Susan McGovern; Mahesh Jayaraman; Yu Liang; Kenneth Aldape; Soonmee Cha; Michael D Kuo Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 11.205
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: D Williams Parsons; Siân Jones; Xiaosong Zhang; Jimmy Cheng-Ho Lin; Rebecca J Leary; Philipp Angenendt; Parminder Mankoo; Hannah Carter; I-Mei Siu; Gary L Gallia; Alessandro Olivi; Roger McLendon; B Ahmed Rasheed; Stephen Keir; Tatiana Nikolskaya; Yuri Nikolsky; Dana A Busam; Hanna Tekleab; Luis A Diaz; James Hartigan; Doug R Smith; Robert L Strausberg; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; Sueli Mieko Oba Shinjo; Hai Yan; Gregory J Riggins; Darell D Bigner; Rachel Karchin; Nick Papadopoulos; Giovanni Parmigiani; Bert Vogelstein; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler Journal: Science Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Luigi Coppola; Alessandra Cianflone; Anna Maria Grimaldi; Mariarosaria Incoronato; Paolo Bevilacqua; Francesco Messina; Simona Baselice; Andrea Soricelli; Peppino Mirabelli; Marco Salvatore Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Jun Zhang; Hong Peng; Yu-Lin Wang; Hua-Feng Xiao; Yuan-Yuan Cui; Xiang-Bing Bian; De-Kang Zhang; Lin Ma Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 6.244