UNLABELLED: We report the prognostic significance of tumor CT contrast enhancement within histological subgroups in 831 consecutive adult glioma patients of high-grade (n = 516) and low-grade (n = 315) histology. In the present report, a negative prognostic factor is associated with shortened survival. METHODS: Survival analysis including Kaplan-Meier plots, log-rank tests, Cox analysis, and Aalen's linear model as implemented in SPSS and S-PLUS. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of contrast enhancement as a test for high-grade glioma was 0.87 and 0.79, respectively. Enhancement was a strong negative prognostic factor comparable to high-grade histology in the total patient population. Enhancement was also a negative prognostic factor within the subgroups adult high-grade (Grade 3-4), anaplastic (Grade 3), and low-grade (Grade 1-2) gliomas (p < 0.001). The prognostic implications of initial enhancement declined in high-grade patients surviving beyond 36 months. Tumor contrast enhancement or calcifications (in parentheses) were present in 96% (3.6%) of glioblastomas, in 87% (7.4%) of high-grade gliomas, in 56.5% of anaplastic gliomas, and in 21% (16.2%) of low-grade gliomas. Calcification was a positive prognostic factor within the high-grade group of patients (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Enhancement was a major prognostic factor comparable to high-grade histology in this glioma patient population. Enhancement was a negative prognostic factor within each of the adult subgroups high-grade, anaplastic (grade 3), and low-grade gliomas. Enhancement was strongly associated with but not pathognomonic for high-grade histology.
UNLABELLED: We report the prognostic significance of tumor CT contrast enhancement within histological subgroups in 831 consecutive adult gliomapatients of high-grade (n = 516) and low-grade (n = 315) histology. In the present report, a negative prognostic factor is associated with shortened survival. METHODS: Survival analysis including Kaplan-Meier plots, log-rank tests, Cox analysis, and Aalen's linear model as implemented in SPSS and S-PLUS. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of contrast enhancement as a test for high-grade glioma was 0.87 and 0.79, respectively. Enhancement was a strong negative prognostic factor comparable to high-grade histology in the total patient population. Enhancement was also a negative prognostic factor within the subgroups adult high-grade (Grade 3-4), anaplastic (Grade 3), and low-grade (Grade 1-2) gliomas (p < 0.001). The prognostic implications of initial enhancement declined in high-grade patients surviving beyond 36 months. Tumor contrast enhancement or calcifications (in parentheses) were present in 96% (3.6%) of glioblastomas, in 87% (7.4%) of high-grade gliomas, in 56.5% of anaplastic gliomas, and in 21% (16.2%) of low-grade gliomas. Calcification was a positive prognostic factor within the high-grade group of patients (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Enhancement was a major prognostic factor comparable to high-grade histology in this gliomapatient population. Enhancement was a negative prognostic factor within each of the adult subgroups high-grade, anaplastic (grade 3), and low-grade gliomas. Enhancement was strongly associated with but not pathognomonic for high-grade histology.
Authors: J L Hutton; D F Smith; D Sandemann; P M Foy; M D Shaw; I R Williams; D W Chadwick Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1992-04 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: D F Smith; J L Hutton; D Sandemann; P M Foy; M D Shaw; I R Williams; D W Chadwick Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1991-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Deborah T Blumenthal; Orna Aisenstein; Idan Ben-Horin; Dafna Ben Bashat; Moran Artzi; Benjamin W Corn; Andrew A Kanner; Zvi Ram; Felix Bokstein Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Aaron A Cohen-Gadol; Michael L DiLuna; Sergei I Bannykh; Joseph M Piepmeier; Dennis D Spencer Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Bhaswati Roy; Rakesh K Gupta; Andrew A Maudsley; Rishi Awasthi; Sulaiman Sheriff; Meng Gu; Nuzhat Husain; Sudipta Mohakud; Sanjay Behari; Chandra M Pandey; Ram K S Rathore; Daniel M Spielman; Jeffry R Alger Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-02-02 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Christian Plathow; Matthias Philipp Lichy; Peter Bachert; Ivan Zuna; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Yinyan Wang; Kai Wang; Hongming Li; Jiangfei Wang; Lei Wang; Jianping Dai; Tao Jiang; Jun Ma Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sarah Jost Fouke; Tammie Benzinger; Daniel Gibson; Timothy C Ryken; Steven N Kalkanis; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 4.130