Xiaoping Yi1,2, Hang Cao3, Haiyun Tang1, Guanghui Gong4, Zhongliang Hu4, Weihua Liao1, Lunquan Sun2,5, Bihong T Chen6, Xuejun Li7. 1. Department of Radiology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, People's Republic of China. 2. Postdoctoral Research Workstation of Pathology and Pathophysiology, Basic Medical Sciences, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Pathology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, People's Republic of China. 5. Center for Molecular Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, People's Republic of China. 6. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, People's Republic of China. lxjneuro@csu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively review the radiological and clinicopathological features of gliosarcoma (GSM) and differentiate it from glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). METHODS: The clinicopathological data and imaging findings (including VASARI analysis) of 48 surgically and pathologically confirmed GSM patients (group 1) were reviewed in detail, and were compared with that of other glioblastoma (GBM) cases in our hospital (group 2). RESULTS: There were 28 men and 20 women GSM patients with a median age of 52.5 years (range, 24-80 years) in this study. Haemorrhage (n = 21), a salt-and-pepper sign on T2-weighted images (n = 36), unevenly thickened wall (n = 36) even appearing as a paliform pattern (n = 32), an intra-tumoural large feeding artery (n = 32) and an eccentric cystic portion (ECP) (n = 19) were more commonly observed in the GSM group than in GBM patients. Based on our experience, GSM can be divided into four subtypes according to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features. When compared to GBM (group 2), there were more patients designated with type III lesions (having very unevenly thickened walls) and IV (solid) lesions among the GSM cases (group 1). On univariate prognostic analysis, adjuvant therapy (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiochemotherapy) and existence of an eccentric cyst region were prognostic factors. However, Cox's regression model showed only adjuvant therapy as a prognostic factor for GSM. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to GBM, certain imaging features are more likely to occur in GSM, which may help raise the possibility of this disease. All GSM patients are recommended to receive adjuvant therapy to achieve a better prognosis with radiotherapy, chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy all as options. KEY POINTS: • Diagnosis of gliosarcoma can be suggested preoperatively by imaging. • Gliosarcoma can be divided into four subtypes based on MRI. • Paliform pattern and ECP tend to present in gliosarcoma more than GBM. • The cystic subtype of gliosarcoma may predict a more dismal prognosis. • All gliosarcoma patients should receive adjuvant therapy to achieve better prognosis.
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively review the radiological and clinicopathological features of gliosarcoma (GSM) and differentiate it from glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). METHODS: The clinicopathological data and imaging findings (including VASARI analysis) of 48 surgically and pathologically confirmed GSM patients (group 1) were reviewed in detail, and were compared with that of other glioblastoma (GBM) cases in our hospital (group 2). RESULTS: There were 28 men and 20 women GSM patients with a median age of 52.5 years (range, 24-80 years) in this study. Haemorrhage (n = 21), a salt-and-pepper sign on T2-weighted images (n = 36), unevenly thickened wall (n = 36) even appearing as a paliform pattern (n = 32), an intra-tumoural large feeding artery (n = 32) and an eccentric cystic portion (ECP) (n = 19) were more commonly observed in the GSM group than in GBM patients. Based on our experience, GSM can be divided into four subtypes according to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features. When compared to GBM (group 2), there were more patients designated with type III lesions (having very unevenly thickened walls) and IV (solid) lesions among the GSM cases (group 1). On univariate prognostic analysis, adjuvant therapy (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiochemotherapy) and existence of an eccentric cyst region were prognostic factors. However, Cox's regression model showed only adjuvant therapy as a prognostic factor for GSM. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to GBM, certain imaging features are more likely to occur in GSM, which may help raise the possibility of this disease. All GSM patients are recommended to receive adjuvant therapy to achieve a better prognosis with radiotherapy, chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy all as options. KEY POINTS: • Diagnosis of gliosarcoma can be suggested preoperatively by imaging. • Gliosarcoma can be divided into four subtypes based on MRI. • Paliform pattern and ECP tend to present in gliosarcoma more than GBM. • The cystic subtype of gliosarcoma may predict a more dismal prognosis. • All gliosarcomapatients should receive adjuvant therapy to achieve better prognosis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Glioblastoma; Gliosarcoma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multidetector computed tomography; Prognosis
Authors: Jan C Buckner; Karla V Ballman; John C Michalak; Gary V Burton; Terrence L Cascino; Paula J Schomberg; Roland B Hawkins; Bernd W Scheithauer; Howard M Sandler; Randolph S Marks; Judith R O'Fallon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roger Stupp; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Michael Weller; Barbara Fisher; Martin J B Taphoorn; Karl Belanger; Alba A Brandes; Christine Marosi; Ulrich Bogdahn; Jürgen Curschmann; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Thierry Gorlia; Anouk Allgeier; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; René O Mirimanoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jun Su; Qianquan Ma; Wenyong Long; Hailin Tang; Changwu Wu; Mei Luo; Xiangyu Wang; Kai Xiao; Yang Li; Qun Xiao; Chi Zhang; Haoyu Li; Qing Liu Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Cas S Dejonckheere; Alexander M C Böhner; David Koch; Leonard C Schmeel; Ulrich Herrlinger; Hartmut Vatter; Matthias Schneider; Patrick Schuss; Frank A Giordano; Mümtaz A Köksal Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Christoph J Maurer; Irina Mader; Felix Joachimski; Ori Staszewski; Bruno Märkl; Horst Urbach; Roland Roelz Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-04-30