Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
Research ArticleBrain
Open Access

Pretreatment ADC Histogram Analysis Is a Predictive Imaging Biomarker for Bevacizumab Treatment but Not Chemotherapy in Recurrent Glioblastoma

B.M. Ellingson, S. Sahebjam, H.J. Kim, W.B. Pope, R.J. Harris, D.C. Woodworth, A. Lai, P.L. Nghiemphu, W.P. Mason and T.F. Cloughesy
American Journal of Neuroradiology April 2014, 35 (4) 673-679; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3748
B.M. Ellingson
aFrom the Departments of Radiological Sciences (B.M.E., H.J.K., W.B.P., R.J.H., D.C.W.)
bBiomedical Physics (B.M.E., R.J.H., D.C.W.)
cBioengineering (B.M.E.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Sahebjam
eDepartment of Medicine (S.S., W.P.M.), Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H.J. Kim
aFrom the Departments of Radiological Sciences (B.M.E., H.J.K., W.B.P., R.J.H., D.C.W.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W.B. Pope
aFrom the Departments of Radiological Sciences (B.M.E., H.J.K., W.B.P., R.J.H., D.C.W.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R.J. Harris
aFrom the Departments of Radiological Sciences (B.M.E., H.J.K., W.B.P., R.J.H., D.C.W.)
bBiomedical Physics (B.M.E., R.J.H., D.C.W.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D.C. Woodworth
aFrom the Departments of Radiological Sciences (B.M.E., H.J.K., W.B.P., R.J.H., D.C.W.)
bBiomedical Physics (B.M.E., R.J.H., D.C.W.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Lai
dNeurology (A.L., P.L.N., T.F.C.), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P.L. Nghiemphu
dNeurology (A.L., P.L.N., T.F.C.), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W.P. Mason
eDepartment of Medicine (S.S., W.P.M.), Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T.F. Cloughesy
dNeurology (A.L., P.L.N., T.F.C.), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Pre-treatment ADC characteristics have been shown to predict response to bevacizumab in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. However, no studies have examined whether ADC characteristics are specific to this particular treatment. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether ADC histogram analysis is a bevacizumab-specific or treatment-independent biomarker of treatment response in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine bevacizumab-treated and 43 chemotherapy-treated recurrent glioblastoma multiformes never exposed to bevacizumab were included in this study. In all patients, ADC values in contrast-enhancing ROIs from MR imaging examinations performed at the time of recurrence, immediately before commencement of treatment for recurrence, were extracted and the resulting histogram was fitted to a mixed model with a double Gaussian distribution. Mean ADC in the lower Gaussian curve was used as the primary biomarker of interest. The Cox proportional hazards model and log-rank tests were used for survival analysis.

RESULTS: Cox multivariate regression analysis accounting for the interaction between bevacizumab- and non-bevacizumab-treated patients suggested that the ability of the lower Gaussian curve to predict survival is dependent on treatment (progression-free survival, P = .045; overall survival, P = .003). Patients with bevacizumab-treated recurrent glioblastoma multiforme with a pretreatment lower Gaussian curve > 1.2 μm2/ms had a significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival compared with bevacizumab-treated patients with a lower Gaussian curve < 1.2 μm2/ms. No differences in progression-free survival or overall survival were observed in the chemotherapy-treated cohort. Bevacizumab-treated patients with a mean lower Gaussian curve > 1.2 μm2/ms had a significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS: The mean lower Gaussian curve from ADC histogram analysis is a predictive imaging biomarker for bevacizumab-treated, not chemotherapy-treated, recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme with a mean lower Gaussian curve > 1.2 μm2/ms have a survival advantage when treated with bevacizumab.

ABBREVIATIONS:

ADCL
apparent diffusion coefficient in the lower Gaussian curve
GBM
glioblastoma multiforme
HR
hazard ratio
OS
overall survival
PFS
progression-free survival
UCLA
University of California, Los Angeles
VEGF
vascular endothelial growth factor

Malignant gliomas, including anaplastic astrocytomas, anaplastic oligodendrogliomas, anaplastic mixed oligoastrocytomas, and glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), account for almost 80% of malignant primary brain tumors.1 GBM, the most aggressive and malignant type of primary brain tumor, has a mean survival of only 12–14 months under the current standard of care of radiotherapy combined with concurrent temozolomide, along with adjuvant temozolomide.2,3 GBMs are highly vascular tumors, recruiting existing vasculature and generating neovasculature from excessive levels of circulating angiogenic growth factors, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The highly vascular nature of these tumors has led to a new class of antiangogenic agents, for which there are many ongoing clinical trials in GBM.4⇓–6

Standard imaging techniques are limited in their ability to evaluate the effectiveness of antiangiogenic therapy in malignant gliomas due to a reduction in contrast enhancement. These limitations have resulted in a surge of more advanced imaging biomarkers aimed at predicting response to therapy, as summarized in various review articles.7,8 Among these new imaging biomarkers showing promise are diffusion MR imaging techniques,9⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–18 including ADC histogram analysis. Previous results have shown that pretreatment ADC histogram analysis performed within the contrast-enhancing tumor regions can stratify patients with recurrent GBM into high- and low-risk groups. When using a double Gaussian mixed model to represent the ADC histogram, previous studies have shown that a lower mean value of the Gaussian curve (ADCL) results in a significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in both single-institution9 and multicenter clinical trial data19 when evaluating bevacizumab in malignant gliomas. An important question remains as to whether ADC histogram analysis is a predictive biomarker specific to antiangiogenic therapy in recurrent GBM or whether it is a predictive biomarker independent of the particular treatment administered. In the current study, we performed ADC histogram analysis in patients with recurrent GBM from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) treated with bevacizumab and those with recurrent GBM from the University of Toronto treated with a variety of chemotherapies and never exposed to bevacizumab, to determine whether ADC histogram analysis performed before treatment in recurrent GBM is a bevacizumab-specific or treatment-independent biomarker of treatment response.

Materials and Methods

Patients

Eighty-nine patients with recurrent glioblastoma from UCLA treated with bevacizumab and 43 with recurrent glioblastoma from the University of Toronto treated with a variety of chemotherapies and never exposed to bevacizumab were included in this retrospective study. Data acquisition was performed in compliance with all applicable regulations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Bevacizumab-treated patients were retrospectively selected from the UCLA neuro-oncology data base from November 15, 2005, to August 31, 2010. All UCLA patients in this study signed institutional review board–approved informed consent to have their data included in our research data base. Bevacizumab-treated patients met the following criteria: 1) had pathologically confirmed GBM with recurrence based on MR imaging, clinical data, and/or histology; 2) were regularly treated every 2 weeks per cycle with bevacizumab (5 or 10 mg/kg body weight) alone or in combination with chemotherapy (carboplatin, irinotecan, etoposide, lomustine) at either the first (63 of 89 patients), second (22 of 89 patients), or third tumor recurrence (4 of 89 patients); 3) had baseline (pre-bevacizumab treatment) standard and diffusion MR images available for analysis; and 4) had treatment with bevacizumab at least 3 months after completion of radiation therapy to reduce the probability of pseudoprogression and treatment-induced necrosis. At the last evaluation, 72 of 89 bevacizumab-treated patients with recurrent GBM were deceased.

University of Toronto, chemotherapy-treated patients (n = 43) met the following criteria: 1) had pathologically confirmed GBM with recurrence based on MR imaging, clinical data, and/or histology; 2) were never treated with bevacizumab but instead were treated with continuous temozolomide (n = 17), were rechallenged with 5 days of temozolomide per 28-day cycle (n = 5), and were treated with etoposide (n = 4) or with lomustine (n = 17) at either the first (40 of 43 patients) or second tumor recurrence (3 of 43 patients); 3) had baseline (postrecurrence, pretreatment) standard and diffusion MR images available for analysis; and 4) had treatment at least 3 months after completion of radiation therapy to reduce the probability of pseudoprogression and treatment-induced necrosis. At the time of last evaluation, 41 of 43 chemotherapy-treated patients with recurrent GBM were deceased. The local ethics committee at the University of Toronto approved this retrospective study.

Standard and Diffusion MR Imaging

Standard and diffusion MR imaging data were acquired by using either a 1.5T or 3T MR imaging scanner (Sonata/Avanto/Trio/Verio; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) using pulse sequences supplied by the manufacturer. Standard anatomic images included axial T1-weighted fast spin-echo or MPRAGE sequences, T2-weighted fast spin-echo, and T2-weighted FLAIR images. Diffusion MR images were acquired before injection of exogenous contrast agents. DWI was obtained with TE/TR = 80–110 ms/4–10 seconds, 1 average, section thickness = 5 mm with 1-mm intersection gap, matrix size = 128 × 128, and FOV = 22–25 cm by using a monopolar spin-echo echo-planar preparation. ADC images were calculated from acquired DWI with b=1000 s/mm2 and b=0 s/mm2 images. Additionally, gadopentetate dimeglumine–enhanced (Magnevist; Bayer HealthCare, Wayne, New Jersey; 0.1 mmol/kg) axial T1-weighted images were acquired shortly after contrast injection.

ADC Histogram Analysis

Contrast-enhancing tumor regions observed on pretreatment, postcontrast T1-weighted images were segmented by using standard techniques. Briefly, tumor ROIs were isolated by manually defining the relative region of tumor occurrence, thresholding postcontrast T1-weighted images within these regions by using an empiric threshold, and then manually editing the resulting masks to exclude any nontumor tissue. ADC values were then extracted from contrast-enhancing image voxels (Fig 1). A double Gaussian mixed model was then fit to the histogram data by using nonlinear regression in GraphPad Prism, Version 4.0c (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California). The double Gaussian model was defined as Embedded Image where p(ADC) is the probability of obtaining a particular value of ADC in the histogram, f is the relative proportion of voxels represented by the lower histogram, N(μ,σ) represents a normal (Gaussian) distribution with mean μ and SD σ, ADCL represents the lower and ADCH represents the larger of the 2 Gaussian distributions (Fig 1). The accuracy of model fits were manually examined to exclude erroneous results. In some cases, nonlinear regression was rerun with different initial conditions until convergence was obtained. The mean of the lower Gaussian curve, μADCL, was used as the primary biomarker for patient risk stratification. High-risk patients were identified by μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms, whereas low-risk patients were identified by μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms, based on empiric thresholds identified in previous studies.9,10,19,20

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

ADC histogram analysis in 2 representative patients with recurrent GBM. A, Postcontrast T1-weighted MR imaging. B, Apparent diffusion coefficient map. C, ADC histogram analysis of a 63-year-old patient with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab at first recurrence. This patient had μADCL = 0.8 μm2/ms, PFS = 17 days, and OS = 68 days from the first scanning date. D, Postcontrast T1-weighted MR imaging. E, ADC map. F, ADC histogram analysis of a 71-year-old patient with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab at first recurrence. This patient had μADCL = 1.4 μm2/ms and did not progress or die >1238 days after the baseline MR imaging.

Definition of Tumor Progression

For UCLA patients, tumor recurrence was confirmed by using either direct pathologic confirmation, 18F-FDOPA (3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-l-phenylalanine) PET, or unequivocal evidence on MR imaging as indicated by a board-certified neuroradiologist. For University of Toronto data, tumor recurrence was confirmed by using either direct pathologic confirmation, unequivocal evidence on MR imaging as indicated by a board-certified neuroradiologist, or neurologic deterioration consistent with growing tumor. Unequivocal evidence on MR imaging was determined by >2 sequential months of increasing contrast enhancement on postcontrast T1-weighted images, along with evidence of increasing mass effect.

Statistical Analysis

Baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts (those treated with bevacizumab on recurrence and those never treated with bevacizumab) were compared by using a t test and log-rank test for progression-free survival and overall survival. Kaplan-Meier curves were graphed by treatment type or by ADCL group with the prespecified threshold of 1.2 μm2/ms. Log-rank analysis and Cox hazard models were used to examine the hazard ratio of the ADC characteristics in the progression-free survival or overall survival within the cohort or within the ADCL threshold. Multivariate Cox hazard models with covariates of age, treatment cohort, dichotomized ADCL threshold, and the interaction between mean ADCL and the 2 treatment cohorts were used to test the predictive classifier effect of ADCL in the bevacizumab-treated group. For all analyses, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA, 12 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Results

No difference in age was found between the bevacizumab- and chemotherapy-treated cohorts (University of Toronto: mean, 55.3 ± 9.9 years of age; UCLA, mean = 58.0 ± 12 years of age; Student t test, P = .17). Similarly, no difference in PFS (University of Toronto: median = 76 days; UCLA: median = 127 days; log-rank, P = .20) or OS (University of Toronto: median = 250 days; UCLA: median = 304 days; log-rank, P = .62) was found between patients treated with bevacizumab at recurrence and those treated with chemotherapy and never receiving bevacizumab during their clinical history.

Consistent with previous reports,9,19 univariate log-rank analysis applied to individual Kaplan-Meier curves indicated that bevacizumab-treated patients with μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms had a significantly longer PFS compared with bevacizumab-treated patients with μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms (Fig 2A; log-rank, median PFS = 153 days versus 85 days, HR = 0.4938, P = .0006). No difference in PFS was observed in the chemotherapy-treated group when stratified by mean ADCL (Fig 2B; log-rank, HR = 1.324, P = .3737). For patients with pretreatment tumor μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms, no difference in PFS was observed between chemotherapy or bevacizumab treatment (Fig 2C; log-rank, HR = 0.8088, P = .3675). Patients with μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms, however, showed a significant PFS advantage when treated with bevacizumab compared with standard chemotherapies (Fig 2D; log-rank, HR = 0.4396, P = .0038). Using the lowest risk patients (bevacizumab-treated patients with μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms) as the baseline for comparison, multivariate Cox regression suggested that both age at diagnosis and the interaction between specific treatments and mean ADCL were significant predictors of PFS (Cox model: overall P = .0094; age covariate: HR = 0.9823, P = .036; chemotherapy-treated × μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms: HR = 2.230, P = .045), where older patients and patients with μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms demonstrated a more favorable PFS.

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

Progression-free survival comparisons between treatments (bevacizumab or chemotherapy) and ADCL thresholds (μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms or μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms) in recurrent GBM. A, Comparison of PFS between μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms and μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms in bevacizumab-treated patients (log-rank, P = .0006). B, Comparison of PFS between μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms and μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms in chemotherapy-treated patients (log-rank, P = .3737). C, Comparison of PFS between bevacizumab- and chemotherapy-treated patients with recurrent GBM exhibiting μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms (log-rank, P = .3675). D, Comparison of PFS between bevacizumab and chemotherapy-treated patients exhibiting μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms (log-rank, P = .0038).

Trends in overall survival were similar to those observed with progression-free survival. Consistent with previous studies, univariate log-rank analysis of Kaplan-Meier data suggested that patients with μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms had a significantly longer OS compared with bevacizumab-treated patients with μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms (Fig 3A; log-rank, median OS = 376 days versus 255 days, HR = 0.4883, P = .0016). No difference in OS was observed in the chemotherapy-treated group when stratified by mean ADCL (Fig 3B; log-rank, HR = 1.691, P = .0942). Unlike bevacizumab-treated patients, patients with higher mean ADCL treated with standard chemotherapy tended to have a shorter OS compared with patients exhibiting lower mean ADCL in contrast-enhancing regions before treatment. No difference in OS was observed between chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-treated patients exhibiting μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms (Fig 3C; log-rank, HR = 0.6245, P = .0516), though chemotherapy-treated patients with μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms trended toward a longer OS compared with bevacizumab-treated patients (median OS = 309 days versus 255 days). Patients with μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms demonstrated a significantly longer OS when treated with bevacizumab compared with standard chemotherapy (Fig 3D; log-rank, HR = 1.960, P = .0254), showing almost double the median survival (median OS = 376 days versus 194 days). Again by using the lowest risk patients (bevacizumab-treated patients with μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms) as the baseline for comparison, multivariate Cox regression suggested that mean ADCL, treatment and the interaction between specific treatments and mean ADCL were significant predictors of OS (Cox model: overall P = .047; μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms, HR = 1.976, P = .009; chemotherapy: HR = 1.714, P = .050; chemotherapy × μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms, HR = 0.2790, P = .003).

Fig 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3.

Overall survival comparisons between treatments (bevacizumab or chemotherapy) and ADCL thresholds (μADCL >1.2 μm2/ms or μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms) in recurrent GBM. A, Comparison of OS between μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms and μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms in bevacizumab-treated patients (log-rank, P = .0016). B, Comparison of OS between μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms and μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms in chemotherapy-treated patients (log-rank, P = .0942). C, Comparison of OS between bevacizumab- and chemotherapy-treated patients with recurrent GBM exhibiting μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms (log-rank, P = .0516). D, Comparison of OS between bevacizumab and chemotherapy-treated patients exhibiting μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms (log-rank, P = .0254).

Discussion

Although previous studies have demonstrated the ability of pretreatment ADC histogram analysis to predict recurrent GBM response to bevacizumab in both single-9 and multicenter clinical trials,19 a significant question remained as to whether this type of analysis is a predictive biomarker, specific to bevacizumab therapy, or whether it is a prognostic biomarker independent of the type of treatment. A previous study9 did suggest that pretreatment ADC histogram analysis could predict response to recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab, but not in matched patients with recurrent GBM treated with a non-VEGF-targeted investigative antiangiogenic agent. The patients treated with this non-VEGF-targeted investigative agent, however, were likely eventually treated with bevacizumab after tumor progression as per the standard of care for recurrent GBM in the United States. Unlike this previous investigation, the current study involved an international collaboration with a site where bevacizumab is not used routinely for recurrent GBM, allowing direct comparison of patients with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab with patients never exposed to bevacizumab during their clinical history. Results from the current study clearly indicate pretreatment ADC histogram analysis is a predictive imaging biomarker for bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) therapy, but not chemotherapy, within the context of recurrent glioblastoma.

Although perfusion MR imaging and MR spectroscopy have shown promise as early response biomarkers for bevacizumab once therapy has been initiated, there are currently no acceptable pretreatment clinical biomarkers for judicious preselection of patients with GBM who may maximally benefit from bevacizumab at recurrence. Results from the current study suggest that patients with recurrent GBM with a μADCL > 1.2 μm2/ms within contrast-enhancing regions have a significant survival advantage when treated with bevacizumab compared with a standard chemotherapeutic agent, demonstrating nearly double the median PFS (153 days versus 76.5 days) and OS (376 days versus 194 days). Conversely, patients with μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms do not appear to benefit from bevacizumab therapy at recurrence, and it may, in fact, perform slightly worse than standard therapies (Fig 3C). These current results, along with results from previous studies,9,19 support the use of ADC histogram analysis in recurrent GBM to guide the use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy.

The precise mechanism and biologic correlates for survival differences based on ADC histogram analysis remain controversial. In the current study, we demonstrated a decreased PFS and OS with a decrease in ADC for bevacizumab-treated patients with GBM; however, these trends may be specific to bevacizumab treatment at tumor recurrence. In a study involving newly diagnosed patients with GBM treated with bevacizumab, an ADC histogram analysis suggested that patients with μADCL >1.2 μm2/ms had a worse PFS and OS compared with patients demonstrating a tumor μADCL ≤ 1.2 μm2/ms.10 Differential gene expression analysis uncovered overexpression of various extracellular matrix genes in patients with upfront GBM with μADCL >1.2 μm2/ms,20 suggesting that an elevated ADCL within newly diagnosed tumor may be influenced by extracellular matrix reorganization due to invading tumor. The biologic basis for the clear survival advantage of high ADCL tumors treated with bevacizumab in the recurrent setting has not been validated with histology or gene-expression data and, therefore, remains speculative. The lack of response from low ADCL tumors treated with bevacizumab in the recurrent setting may suggest either a more hypoxic or hypercellular tumor, because both of these factors may influence ADC measurement. Because bevacizumab-treatment-acquired resistance may result in transformation to a more aggressive, infiltrating tumor phenotype through prolonged hypoxia,21,22 it is conceivable that a more hypoxic recurrent tumor presenting with a lower ADCL before bevacizumab therapy may represent tumors with de novo resistance to bevacizumab. Future studies aimed at eliciting the precise biologic mechanism for observed differences in survival between ADC histogram-stratified recurrent GBMs are necessary to further guide therapy and treatment recommendations.

Study Limitations

An important advantage of the proposed ADC histogram analysis techniques used in the current study is the use of standard, clinically acquired diffusion MR imaging data for subsequent analysis, allowing retrospective comparison with other techniques at different institutions and use in controlled, multicenter clinical trials. Despite this advantage, the use of standard, clinical diffusion MR imaging parameters did not allow an ideal choice of b-values used to accurately estimate ADC. Per the recommendations of the National Cancer Institute Diffusion MR Imaging Consensus Conference,23 ≥3 b-values (0 s/mm2, >100 s/mm2, and >500 s/mm2) should be used for estimation of perfusion-insensitive ADC. Additionally, the use of standard, clinical diffusion MR images in ADC histogram analysis can be confounded by other pathologies; therefore, the possibility of confounding factors should also be considered.

Another limitation to the current study was its retrospective nature and the inability to control the timing of pretreatment MR imaging acquisitions. Studies have shown that in antiangiogenic therapies, the timing of MR imaging acquisitions is particularly important for the prediction of response.24 Despite the retrospective nature of the current study, our results demonstrate that ADC maps obtained 1.5 weeks before initial treatment with bevacizumab allowed strong prediction of patient survival.

Last, patients treated with bevacizuamb were from one institution, and patients treated with chemotherapy were from a different institution; therefore, we were not able to account for potential site-specific differences in survival independent of therapy. In addition, despite similar criteria being used for determining tumor progression after therapy, tumor progression was determined at each site independently. Although the difference in progression-free and overall survival between institutions is likely to be small, this is a potential limitation to the current study.

Conclusions

Results suggest that mean ADCL extracted from ADC histogram analysis is a predictive imaging biomarker for stratifying PFS and OS in bevacizumab-treated, but not chemotherapy-treated, recurrent glioblastoma. Results suggest that patients with recurrent GBM with a mean ADCL> 1.2 μm2/ms in pretreatment contrast-enhancing tumor regions have a survival advantage when treated with bevacizumab, whereas patients with mean ADCL≤ 1.2 μm2/ms may not benefit from bevacizumab.

Footnotes

  • Benjamin M. Ellingson and Solmaz Sahebjam contributed equally to this manuscript.

  • Disclosures: Whitney B. Pope—RELATED: Consulting Fee or Honorarium: Genentech/Roche, UNRELATED: Consultancy: Amgen, Exelixis, Tocagen. Albert Lai—UNRELATED: Consultancy: Genentech/Roche,* Comments: Scientific Advisory Board. Warren P. Mason—UNRELATED: Consultancy: Roche, Comments: paid consultant for Hoffmann-La Roche, Payment for Lectures (including service on Speakers Bureaus): Roche. Timothy F. Cloughesy—RELATED: Grant: Roche,* Genentech,* Consulting Fee or Honorarium: Roche, Genentech, UNRELATED: Consultancy: Merck Serono, Merck, Appogenix, NewGen, Tocagen. Benjamin M. Ellingson—Paid consultant for MedQIA, LLC, and nonpaid consultant for Genentech, Inc. *Money paid to the institution.

  • This work was supported by the following: National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute R21CA167354 (B.M.E.); UCLA Institute for Molecular Medicine Seed Grant (B.M.E.); UCLA Radiology Exploratory Research Grant (B.M.E.); University of California Cancer Research Coordinating Committee Grant (B.M.E.); American College of Radiology Imaging Network Young Investigator Initiative Grant (B.M.E.); Art of the Brain (T.F.C.); Ziering Family Foundation in memory of Sigi Ziering (T.F.C.); Singleton Family Foundation (T.F.C.); and Clarence Klein Fund for Neuro-Oncology (T.F.C.).

  • Paper previously presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Neuroradiology; May 18–23, 2013; San Diego, California.

Indicates open access to non-subscribers at www.ajnr.org

References

  1. 1.↵
    Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States. CBTRUS Statistical Report Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2004–2006. http://www.cbtrus.org/2010-NPCR-SEER/CBTRUS-WEBREPORT-Final-3-2-10.pdf. Accessed January 2013
  2. 2.↵
    1. Stupp R,
    2. Mason WP,
    3. van den Bent MJ,
    4. et al
    . Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005;352:987–96
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Wong ET,
    2. Hess KR,
    3. Gleason MJ,
    4. et al
    . Outcomes and prognostic factors in recurrent glioma patients enrolled onto phase II clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2572–78
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Plate KH,
    2. Breier G,
    3. Risau W
    . Molecular mechanisms of developmental and tumor angiogenesis. Brain Pathol 1994;4:207–18
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Millauer B,
    2. Shawver LK,
    3. Plate KH,
    4. et al
    . Glioblastoma growth inhibited in vivo by a dominant-negative Flk-1 mutant. Nature 1994;367:576–79
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Holash J,
    2. Maisonpierre PC,
    3. Compton D,
    4. et al
    . Vessel cooption, regression, and growth in tumors mediated by angiopoietins and VEGF. Science 1999;284:1994–98
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Pope WB,
    2. Young JR,
    3. Ellingson BM
    . Advances in MRI assessment of gliomas and response to anti-VEGF therapy. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2011;11:336–44
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Leu K,
    2. Pope WB,
    3. Cloughesy TF,
    4. et al
    . Imaging biomarkers for anti-angiogenic therapy in malignant gliomas. CNS Oncology 2013;2:33–47
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Pope WB,
    2. Kim HJ,
    3. Huo J,
    4. et al
    . Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: ADC histogram analysis predicts response to bevacizumab treatment. Radiology 2009;252:182–89
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Pope WB,
    2. Lai A,
    3. Mehta R,
    4. et al
    . Apparent diffusion coefficient histogram analysis stratifies progression-free survival in newly diagnosed bevacizumab-treated glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:882–89
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Ellingson BM,
    2. Bedekar DP,
    3. Malkin MG,
    4. et al
    . Hybrid functional diffusion and perfusion maps for evaluation of gliomas. In: Proceedings of the 17th Scientific Meeting and Exhibition of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Honolulu, Hawaii. April 18–24, 2009;17:1000
  12. 12.↵
    1. Ellingson BM,
    2. Cloughesy TF,
    3. Lai A,
    4. et al
    . Graded functional diffusion map-defined characteristics of apparent diffusion coefficients predict overall survival in recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:1151–61
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ellingson BM,
    2. Cloughesy TF,
    3. Lai A,
    4. et al
    . Cell invasion, motility, and proliferation level estimate (CIMPLE) maps derived from serial diffusion MR images in recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. J Neurooncol 2011;105:91–101
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ellingson BM,
    2. Cloughesy TF,
    3. Lai A,
    4. et al
    . Nonlinear registration of diffusion-weighted images improves clinical sensitivity of functional diffusion maps in recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Magn Reson Med 2012;67:237–45
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kothari PD,
    2. White NS,
    3. Farid N,
    4. et al
    . Longitudinal restriction spectrum imaging is resistant to pseudoresponse in patients with high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1752–57
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. White NS,
    2. McDonald CR,
    3. Farid N,
    4. et al
    . Improved conspicuity and delineation of high-grade primary and metastatic brain tumors using “restriction spectrum imaging”: quantitative comparison with high B-value DWI and ADC. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:958–64, S1
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Andre JB,
    2. Lu S,
    3. Spearman K,
    4. et al
    . Peritumoral apparent diffusion coefficient as a metric of response in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme treated with bevacizumab and irinotecan. NRJ 2008;21:350–61
  18. 18.↵
    1. Gerstner ER,
    2. Frosch MP,
    3. Batchelor TT
    . Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging detects pathologically confirmed, nonenhancing tumor progression in a patient with recurrent glioblastoma receiving bevacizumab. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:e91–93
    FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Pope WB,
    2. Qiao XJ,
    3. Kim HJ,
    4. et al
    . Apparent diffusion coefficient histogram analysis stratifies progression-free and overall survival in patients with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab: a multi-center study. J Neurooncol 2012;108:491–98
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Pope WB,
    2. Mirsadraei L,
    3. Lai A,
    4. et al
    . Differential gene expression in glioblastoma defined by ADC histogram analysis: relationship to extracellular matrix molecules and survival. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1059–64
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Lucio-Eterovic AK,
    2. Piao Y,
    3. de Groot JF
    . Mediators of glioblastoma resistance and invasion during antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:4589–99
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Keunen O,
    2. Johansson M,
    3. Oudin A,
    4. et al
    . Anti-VEGF treatment reduces blood supply and increases tumor cell invasion in glioblastoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108:3749–54
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Padhani AR,
    2. Liu G,
    3. Mu-Koh D,
    4. et al
    . Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 2009;11:102–25
    PubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Gerstner ER,
    2. Chen PJ,
    3. Wen PY,
    4. et al
    . Infiltrative patterns of glioblastoma spread detected via diffusion MRI after treatment with cediranib. Neuro Oncol 2010;12:466–72
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • Received June 25, 2013.
  • Accepted after revision August 9, 2013.
  • © 2014 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 35 (4)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 35, Issue 4
1 Apr 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pretreatment ADC Histogram Analysis Is a Predictive Imaging Biomarker for Bevacizumab Treatment but Not Chemotherapy in Recurrent Glioblastoma
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Pretreatment ADC Histogram Analysis Is a Predictive Imaging Biomarker for Bevacizumab Treatment but Not Chemotherapy in Recurrent Glioblastoma
B.M. Ellingson, S. Sahebjam, H.J. Kim, W.B. Pope, R.J. Harris, D.C. Woodworth, A. Lai, P.L. Nghiemphu, W.P. Mason, T.F. Cloughesy
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2014, 35 (4) 673-679; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3748

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Pretreatment ADC Histogram Analysis Is a Predictive Imaging Biomarker for Bevacizumab Treatment but Not Chemotherapy in Recurrent Glioblastoma
B.M. Ellingson, S. Sahebjam, H.J. Kim, W.B. Pope, R.J. Harris, D.C. Woodworth, A. Lai, P.L. Nghiemphu, W.P. Mason, T.F. Cloughesy
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2014, 35 (4) 673-679; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3748
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • MRI and 18FET-PET Predict Survival Benefit from Bevacizumab Plus Radiotherapy in Patients with Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Wild-type Glioblastoma: Results from the Randomized ARTE Trial
  • Radiomics in Brain Tumor: Image Assessment, Quantitative Feature Descriptors, and Machine-Learning Approaches
  • Diffusion MRI Phenotypes Predict Overall Survival Benefit from Anti-VEGF Monotherapy in Recurrent Glioblastoma: Converging Evidence from Phase II Trials
  • Restriction Spectrum Imaging Improves Risk Stratification in Patients with Glioblastoma
  • Early Biomarkers from Conventional and Delayed-Contrast MRI to Predict the Response to Bevacizumab in Recurrent High-Grade Gliomas
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Usefulness of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping for the Diagnosis of Parkinson Disease
  • White Matter Alterations in the Brains of Patients with Active, Remitted, and Cured Cushing Syndrome: A DTI Study
  • Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of MR Imaging Findings in Patients with Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke Implanted with Mesenchymal Stem Cells
Show more BRAIN

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2021 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2022 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire