C H Suh1, H S Kim2, S C Jung1, C G Choi1, S J Kim1. 1. From the Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. From the Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. radhskim@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: O6-methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status has been reported as a prognostic biomarker in clinical trials. PURPOSE: Our aim was to systematically evaluate imaging features of MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma and to determine the diagnostic performance of MR imaging for prediction of MGMT promoter methylation in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. DATA SOURCES: A computerized search of Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 27, 2018, was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: We selected studies evaluating imaging features of MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma and the diagnostic performance of MR imaging for prediction of MGMT promoter methylation. DATA ANALYSIS: Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a hierarchic logistic regression model. Meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were performed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two articles including 2199 patients were included. MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma is likely to show less edema, high ADC, and low perfusion. Ten articles including 753 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The summary sensitivity was 79% (95% CI, 72%-85%), and the summary specificity was 78% (95% CI, 71%-84%). In the meta-regression, MGMT promoter methylation and mean age were associated with heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis excluding 1 study resolved the heterogeneity. LIMITATIONS: Included studies used a variety of different MR imaging techniques to predict MGMT promoter methylation. CONCLUSIONS: MGMT promotor methylated glioblastoma is likely to show less aggressive imaging features than MGMT promotor unmethylated glioblastoma. Despite the variety of different MR imaging techniques used, MR imaging in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma was shown to have the potential to predict MGMT promoter methylation noninvasively.
BACKGROUND:O6-methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status has been reported as a prognostic biomarker in clinical trials. PURPOSE: Our aim was to systematically evaluate imaging features of MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma and to determine the diagnostic performance of MR imaging for prediction of MGMT promoter methylation in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. DATA SOURCES: A computerized search of Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 27, 2018, was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: We selected studies evaluating imaging features of MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma and the diagnostic performance of MR imaging for prediction of MGMT promoter methylation. DATA ANALYSIS: Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a hierarchic logistic regression model. Meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were performed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two articles including 2199 patients were included. MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma is likely to show less edema, high ADC, and low perfusion. Ten articles including 753 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The summary sensitivity was 79% (95% CI, 72%-85%), and the summary specificity was 78% (95% CI, 71%-84%). In the meta-regression, MGMT promoter methylation and mean age were associated with heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis excluding 1 study resolved the heterogeneity. LIMITATIONS: Included studies used a variety of different MR imaging techniques to predict MGMT promoter methylation. CONCLUSIONS:MGMT promotor methylated glioblastoma is likely to show less aggressive imaging features than MGMT promotor unmethylated glioblastoma. Despite the variety of different MR imaging techniques used, MR imaging in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma was shown to have the potential to predict MGMT promoter methylation noninvasively.
Authors: Natalia Saltybaeva; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Diem Vuong; Simon Burgermeister; Michael Mayinger; Andrea Bink; Nicolaus Andratschke; Matthias Guckenberger; Marta Bogowicz Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-05-14
Authors: H J Choi; S H Choi; S-H You; R-E Yoo; K M Kang; T J Yun; J-H Kim; C-H Sohn; C-K Park; S-H Park Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C G B Yogananda; B R Shah; S S Nalawade; G K Murugesan; F F Yu; M C Pinho; B C Wagner; B Mickey; T R Patel; B Fei; A J Madhuranthakam; J A Maldjian Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sohil H Patel; Prem P Batchala; Thomas J Eluvathingal Muttikkal; Sergio S Ferrante; James T Patrie; Camilo E Fadul; David Schiff; M Beatriz Lopes; Rajan Jain Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Elisabeth Springer; Pedro Lima Cardoso; Bernhard Strasser; Wolfgang Bogner; Matthias Preusser; Georg Widhalm; Mathias Nittka; Gregor Koerzdoerfer; Pavol Szomolanyi; Gilbert Hangel; Johannes A Hainfellner; Wolfgang Marik; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 6.575