H J Choi1, S H Choi2, S-H You3, R-E Yoo4, K M Kang4, T J Yun4, J-H Kim4, C-H Sohn4, C-K Park5, S-H Park6. 1. From the Department of Radiology (H.J.C.), Cha Bundang Medical Center, Cha University, Seongnam, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology (S.H.C., R.-E.Y., K.M.K., T.J.Y., J.-h.K., C.-H.S.), Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea verocay@snuh.org. 3. Department of Radiology (S.-H.Y.), Korea University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Radiology (S.H.C., R.-E.Y., K.M.K., T.J.Y., J.-h.K., C.-H.S.), Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 5. Department of Neurosurgery (C.-K.P.), Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Pathology (S.-H.P.), Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status in primary and recurrent glioblastoma may change during treatment. The purpose of this study was to correlate MGMT promoter methylation status changes with DWI and DSC PWI features in patients with recurrent glioblastoma after standard treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2008 and November 2016, forty patients with histologically confirmed recurrent glioblastoma were enrolled. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the MGMT promoter methylation status for the initial and recurrent tumors: 2 groups whose MGMT promoter methylation status remained, group methylated (n = 13) or group unmethylated (n = 18), and 1 group whose MGMT promoter methylation status changed from methylated to unmethylated (n = 9). Normalized ADC and normalized relative CBV values were obtained from both the enhancing and nonenhancing regions, from which histogram parameters were calculated. The ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post hoc tests were performed to compare histogram parameters among the 3 groups. The t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare parameters between group methylated and group methylated to unmethylated. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to measure the predictive performance of the normalized relative CBV values between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Group methylated to unmethylated showed significantly higher means and 90th and 95th percentiles of the cumulative normalized relative CBV values of the nonenhancing region of the initial tumor than group methylated and group unmethylated (all P < .05). The mean normalized relative CBV value of the nonenhancing region of the initial tumor was the best predictor of methylation status change (P < .001), with a sensitivity of 77.78% and specificity of 92.31% at a cutoff value of 2.594. CONCLUSIONS: MGMT promoter methylation status might change in recurrent glioblastoma after standard treatment. The normalized relative CBV values of the nonenhancing region at the first preoperative MR imaging were higher in the MGMT promoter methylation change group from methylation to unmethylation in recurrent glioblastoma.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status in primary and recurrent glioblastoma may change during treatment. The purpose of this study was to correlate MGMT promoter methylation status changes with DWI and DSC PWI features in patients with recurrent glioblastoma after standard treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2008 and November 2016, forty patients with histologically confirmed recurrent glioblastoma were enrolled. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the MGMT promoter methylation status for the initial and recurrent tumors: 2 groups whose MGMT promoter methylation status remained, group methylated (n = 13) or group unmethylated (n = 18), and 1 group whose MGMT promoter methylation status changed from methylated to unmethylated (n = 9). Normalized ADC and normalized relative CBV values were obtained from both the enhancing and nonenhancing regions, from which histogram parameters were calculated. The ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post hoc tests were performed to compare histogram parameters among the 3 groups. The t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare parameters between group methylated and group methylated to unmethylated. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to measure the predictive performance of the normalized relative CBV values between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Group methylated to unmethylated showed significantly higher means and 90th and 95th percentiles of the cumulative normalized relative CBV values of the nonenhancing region of the initial tumor than group methylated and group unmethylated (all P < .05). The mean normalized relative CBV value of the nonenhancing region of the initial tumor was the best predictor of methylation status change (P < .001), with a sensitivity of 77.78% and specificity of 92.31% at a cutoff value of 2.594. CONCLUSIONS: MGMT promoter methylation status might change in recurrent glioblastoma after standard treatment. The normalized relative CBV values of the nonenhancing region at the first preoperative MR imaging were higher in the MGMT promoter methylation change group from methylation to unmethylation in recurrent glioblastoma.
Authors: Andrea Romano; L F Calabria; F Tavanti; G Minniti; M C Rossi-Espagnet; V Coppola; S Pugliese; D Guida; G Francione; C Colonnese; L M Fantozzi; A Bozzao Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alba A Brandes; Enrico Franceschi; Alexandro Paccapelo; Giovanni Tallini; Dario De Biase; Claudio Ghimenton; Daniela Danieli; Elena Zunarelli; Giovanni Lanza; Enrico Maria Silini; Carmelo Sturiale; Lorenzo Volpin; Franco Servadei; Andrea Talacchi; Antonio Fioravanti; Maria Pia Foschini; Stefania Bartolini; Annalisa Pession; Mario Ermani Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-03-08
Authors: Leonard Sunwoo; Seung Hong Choi; Chul-Kee Park; Jin Wook Kim; Kyung Sik Yi; Woong Jae Lee; Tae Jin Yoon; Sang Woo Song; Ja Eun Kim; Ji Young Kim; Tae Min Kim; Se-Hoon Lee; Ji-Hoon Kim; Chul-Ho Sohn; Sung-Hye Park; Il Han Kim; Kee-Hyun Chang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: I Hwang; S H Choi; C-K Park; T M Kim; S-H Park; J K Won; I H Kim; S-T Lee; R-E Yoo; K M Kang; T J Yun; J-H Kim; C-H Sohn Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Monika E Hegi; Annie-Claire Diserens; Thierry Gorlia; Marie-France Hamou; Nicolas de Tribolet; Michael Weller; Johan M Kros; Johannes A Hainfellner; Warren Mason; Luigi Mariani; Jacoline E C Bromberg; Peter Hau; René O Mirimanoff; J Gregory Cairncross; Robert C Janzer; Roger Stupp Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A W Tolcher; S L Gerson; L Denis; C Geyer; L A Hammond; A Patnaik; A D Goetz; G Schwartz; T Edwards; L Reyderman; P Statkevich; D L Cutler; E K Rowinsky Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-04-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: George S Stoyanov; Emran Lyutfi; Reneta Georgieva; Radoslav Georgiev; Deyan L Dzhenkov; Lilyana Petkova; Borislav D Ivanov; Ara Kaprelyan; Peter Ghenev Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-02-01
Authors: Vittorio Stumpo; Lelio Guida; Jacopo Bellomo; Christiaan Hendrik Bas Van Niftrik; Martina Sebök; Moncef Berhouma; Andrea Bink; Michael Weller; Zsolt Kulcsar; Luca Regli; Jorn Fierstra Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 6.639