Shashwat Tripathi1,2, Tito Vivas-Buitrago1,3, Ricardo A Domingo1, Gaetano De Biase1, Desmond Brown4, Oluwaseun O Akinduro1, Andres Ramos-Fresnedo1, Wendy Sherman1,5, Vivek Gupta6, Erik H Middlebrooks1,6, David S Sabsevitz1,7, Alyx B Porter8, Joon H Uhm9, Bernard R Bendok10, Ian Parney4, Fredric B Meyer4, Kaisorn L Chaichana1, Kristin R Swanson10,11, Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa1. 1. 1Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 2. 10Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; and. 3. 11Department of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Universidad de Santander UDES, Bucaramanga, Colombia. 4. 2Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 5. 7Department of Neurology, Division of Neuro-Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville. 6. 8Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville. 7. 9Department of Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 8. 5Department of Neurology, Division of Neuro-Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. 9. 6Department of Neurology, Division of Neuro-Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 10. 3Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix. 11. 4Mathematical Neuro-Oncology Lab, Precision Neurotherapeutics Innovation Program, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have proposed resection of the T2 FLAIR hyperintensity beyond the T1 contrast enhancement (supramarginal resection [SMR]) for IDH-wild-type glioblastoma (GBM) to further improve patients' overall survival (OS). GBMs have significant variability in tumor cell density, distribution, and infiltration. Advanced mathematical models based on patient-specific radiographic features have provided new insights into GBM growth kinetics on two important parameters of tumor aggressiveness: proliferation rate (ρ) and diffusion rate (D). The aim of this study was to investigate OS of patients with IDH-wild-type GBM who underwent SMR based on a mathematical model of cell distribution and infiltration profile (tumor invasiveness profile). METHODS: Volumetric measurements were obtained from the selected regions of interest from pre- and postoperative MRI studies of included patients. The tumor invasiveness profile (proliferation/diffusion [ρ/D] ratio) was calculated using the following formula: ρ/D ratio = (4π/3)2/3 × (6.106/[VT21/1 - VT11/1])2, where VT2 and VT1 are the preoperative FLAIR and contrast-enhancing volumes, respectively. Patients were split into subgroups based on their tumor invasiveness profiles. In this analysis, tumors were classified as nodular, moderately diffuse, or highly diffuse. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were included. Tumors were classified as nodular (n = 34), moderately diffuse (n = 34), and highly diffuse (n = 33). On multivariate analysis, increasing SMR had a significant positive correlation with OS for moderately and highly diffuse tumors (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-0.99; p = 0.02; and HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99; p = 0.04, respectively). On threshold analysis, OS benefit was seen with SMR from 10% to 29%, 10% to 59%, and 30% to 90%, for nodular, moderately diffuse, and highly diffuse, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of SMR on OS for patients with IDH-wild-type GBM is influenced by the degree of tumor invasiveness. The authors' results show that increasing SMR is associated with increased OS in patients with moderate and highly diffuse IDH-wild-type GBMs. When grouping SMR into 10% intervals, this benefit was seen for all tumor subgroups, although for nodular tumors, the maximum beneficial SMR percentage was considerably lower than in moderate and highly diffuse tumors.
OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have proposed resection of the T2 FLAIR hyperintensity beyond the T1 contrast enhancement (supramarginal resection [SMR]) for IDH-wild-type glioblastoma (GBM) to further improve patients' overall survival (OS). GBMs have significant variability in tumor cell density, distribution, and infiltration. Advanced mathematical models based on patient-specific radiographic features have provided new insights into GBM growth kinetics on two important parameters of tumor aggressiveness: proliferation rate (ρ) and diffusion rate (D). The aim of this study was to investigate OS of patients with IDH-wild-type GBM who underwent SMR based on a mathematical model of cell distribution and infiltration profile (tumor invasiveness profile). METHODS: Volumetric measurements were obtained from the selected regions of interest from pre- and postoperative MRI studies of included patients. The tumor invasiveness profile (proliferation/diffusion [ρ/D] ratio) was calculated using the following formula: ρ/D ratio = (4π/3)2/3 × (6.106/[VT21/1 - VT11/1])2, where VT2 and VT1 are the preoperative FLAIR and contrast-enhancing volumes, respectively. Patients were split into subgroups based on their tumor invasiveness profiles. In this analysis, tumors were classified as nodular, moderately diffuse, or highly diffuse. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were included. Tumors were classified as nodular (n = 34), moderately diffuse (n = 34), and highly diffuse (n = 33). On multivariate analysis, increasing SMR had a significant positive correlation with OS for moderately and highly diffuse tumors (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-0.99; p = 0.02; and HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99; p = 0.04, respectively). On threshold analysis, OS benefit was seen with SMR from 10% to 29%, 10% to 59%, and 30% to 90%, for nodular, moderately diffuse, and highly diffuse, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of SMR on OS for patients with IDH-wild-type GBM is influenced by the degree of tumor invasiveness. The authors' results show that increasing SMR is associated with increased OS in patients with moderate and highly diffuse IDH-wild-type GBMs. When grouping SMR into 10% intervals, this benefit was seen for all tumor subgroups, although for nodular tumors, the maximum beneficial SMR percentage was considerably lower than in moderate and highly diffuse tumors.
Authors: Kaisorn L Chaichana; Matthew J McGirt; James Frazier; Frank Attenello; Hugo Guerrero-Cazares; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Francesco Certo; Walter Stummer; Jibril O Farah; Christian Freyschlag; Massimiliano Visocchi; Antonio Morrone; Roberto Altieri; Giada Toccaceli; Simone Peschillo; Claudius Thomè; Michael Jenkinson; Giuseppe Barbagallo Journal: J Neurosurg Sci Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Karim ReFaey; William D Freeman; Shashwat Tripathi; Hugo Guerrero-Cazares; Tiffany A Eatz; James F Meschia; Rickey E Carter; Leonard Petrucelli; Fredric B Meyer; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Paula Schiapparelli; Hugo Guerrero-Cazares; Roxana Magaña-Maldonado; Susan M Hamilla; Sara Ganaha; Eric Goulin Lippi Fernandes; Chuan-Hsiang Huang; Helim Aranda-Espinoza; Peter Devreotes; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Andres Ramos-Fresnedo; Ricardo A Domingo; Carlos Perez-Vega; Michael W Pullen; Oluwaseun O Akinduro; Joao P Almeida; Mark E Jentoft; Bernard R Bendok; Kaisorn L Chaichana; Daniel M Trifiletti; Terence C Burns; Alyx B Porter; Sani H Kizilbash; Erik H Middlebrooks; Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa; Wendy J Sherman Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Andres Ramos-Fresnedo; Michael W Pullen; Carlos Perez-Vega; Ricardo A Domingo; Oluwaseun O Akinduro; Joao P Almeida; Paola Suarez-Meade; Lina Marenco-Hillembrand; Mark E Jentoft; Bernard R Bendok; Daniel M Trifiletti; Kaisorn L Chaichana; Alyx B Porter; Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa; Terence C Burns; Sani H Kizilbash; Erik H Middlebrooks; Wendy J Sherman Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Emily S Norton; Lauren A Whaley; María José Ulloa-Navas; Patricia García-Tárraga; Kayleah M Meneses; Montserrat Lara-Velazquez; Natanael Zarco; Anna Carrano; Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa; José Manuel García-Verdugo; Hugo Guerrero-Cázares Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS Date: 2022-07-11