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 ArticleAdult Brain

Prognostic Value of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced and Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Patients with Glioblastomas

G. Çoban, S. Mohan, F. Kural, S. Wang, D.M. O'Rourke and H. Poptani
American Journal of Neuroradiology July 2015, 36 (7) 1247-1252; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4284
G. Çoban
aFrom the Department of Radiology (G.Ç., F.K.), Baskent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
bDepartments of Radiology (G.Ç., S.M., F.K., S.W., H.P.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for G. Çoban
S. Mohan
bDepartments of Radiology (G.Ç., S.M., F.K., S.W., H.P.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Kural
aFrom the Department of Radiology (G.Ç., F.K.), Baskent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
bDepartments of Radiology (G.Ç., S.M., F.K., S.W., H.P.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Wang
bDepartments of Radiology (G.Ç., S.M., F.K., S.W., H.P.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D.M. O'Rourke
cNeurosurgery (D.M.O.), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Poptani
bDepartments of Radiology (G.Ç., S.M., F.K., S.W., H.P.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prediction of survival in patients with glioblastomas is important for individualized treatment planning. This study aimed to assess the prognostic utility of presurgical dynamic susceptibility contrast and diffusion-weighted imaging for overall survival in patients with glioblastoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging data from pathologically proved glioblastomas between June 2006 to December 2013 in 58 patients (mean age, 62.7 years; age range, 22–89 years) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into long survival (≥15 months) and short survival (<15 months) groups, depending on overall survival time. Patients underwent dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion and DWI before surgery and were treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The maximum relative cerebral blood volume and minimum mean diffusivity values were measured from the enhancing part of the tumor.

RESULTS: Maximum relative cerebral blood volume values in patients with short survival were significantly higher compared with those who demonstrated long survival (P < .05). No significant difference was observed in the minimum mean diffusivity between short and long survivors. Receiver operator curve analysis demonstrated that a maximum relative cerebral blood volume cutoff value of 5.79 differentiated patients with low and high survival with an area under the curve of 0.93, sensitivity of 0.89, and specificity of 0.90 (P < .001), while a minimum mean diffusivity cutoff value of 8.35 × 10−4mm2/s had an area under the curve of 0.55, sensitivity of 0.71, and specificity of 0.47 (P > .05) in separating the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Maximum relative cerebral blood volume may be used as a prognostic marker of overall survival in patients with glioblastomas.

ABBREVIATIONS:

EGFR
epidermal growth factor receptor
GBM
glioblastoma
MD
mean diffusivity
MDmin
minimum mean diffusivity
rCBV
relative cerebral blood volume
rCBVmax
maximum relative cerebral blood volume

Glioblastomas (GBMs) are the most common malignant tumors of the central nervous system in adults, representing 50% of all gliomas and 20% of all intracranial solid lesions.1 The prognosis of GBM is poor, and median overall survival is <1 year.2 Even in optimal conditions (young patients treated by radical surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy), death usually occurs within 2 years.3,4 Several factors, both clinical (age, performance status) and therapeutic (extent of surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy), as well as specific tumor characteristics such as location and nature (de novo or secondary from a low-grade glioma)5,6 have been studied as potential prognostic markers of overall survival with variable degrees of sensitivity and specificity. Recently, tumor genetics is also being investigated as a prognostic index.7,8

Conventional MR imaging is widely used as the technique of choice for GBM diagnosis and also has an important role in monitoring disease progression and response to therapy for patients with GBM. Additional advanced imaging techniques, such as relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) obtained from dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging, have been used to predict glioma grade9⇓–11 and assess treatment response.12 A recent report10 indicated that maximum relative cerebral blood volume (rCBVmax) can be used as a predictive marker of progression-free survival in patients with gliomas, regardless of the tumor grade.

Similar to perfusion imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging has also been used for diagnosis of tumors. Tumors with high cellularity demonstrate restricted diffusion and thus low mean diffusivity (MD) or apparent diffusion coefficient, which inversely correlates with tumor cellularity.13,14 Areas with minimum mean diffusivity (MDmin) reflect the sites of highest cellularity, and tumors with a low MD tend to have a poor prognosis.15⇓⇓–18

Radiation therapy and chemotherapy with temozolomide have become the standard of care in the treatment of GBM and have demonstrated increased survival benefits in patients with newly diagnosed GBM.19 However, several clinical trials, including blocking the tyrosine kinase activity of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR),20,21 using competitive and noncompetitive kinase inhibitors in combination with radiation and temozolomide,20,21 and using monoclonal antibodies,20 are also investigating the treatment of GBMs. The exact value of each of these therapeutic strategies remains investigative though. The overall survival of patients with glioblastomas varies significantly,17,18 and it is imperative to know which patients will do better or worse, preferably before initiation of treatment, by using a noninvasive imaging method, so as to tailor fit the therapy for the best management and hopefully increased survival. We have evaluated the role of DSC-MR imaging and DWI as potential prognostic imaging markers in patients with GBM with an eventual goal of using these parameters in the selection of the optimal treatment option for these patients.

Materials and Methods

MR Imaging

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. A total of 564 treatment-naïve patients diagnosed with GBM at the University of Pennsylvania from June 2006 to December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Because we were interested in evaluating the role of perfusion-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging, we excluded the cases in which the PWI or DWI scans were not available. In addition, we analyzed the pretreatment MR imaging scans of only those patients who had gross total resection of their tumors so that the extent of surgery was not a confounder in the analysis. Furthermore, we also excluded all GBMs with oligodendroglial features. Of the 564 cases reviewed, 58 patients (32 men and 26 women; mean age, 62.71 ± 13.2 years; age range, 22–89 years) with a pathologically proved GBM met our inclusion criteria and were included in the study. After surgery, all the patients were treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

We used a 15-month overall survival as the cutoff to evaluate rCBVmax and MDmin as predictive markers because several previous studies have reported a median overall survival time of 12–15 months for patients with GBM.2,18,19 Thus, the 58 patients in our study were divided into 2 groups: patients having long survival (n = 30, patients who had an overall survival of ≥15 months) and short survival (n = 28, patients who had an overall survival of <15 months). The survival time was calculated as the time (in months) from the initial date of diagnosis until the date of death. The clinical symptoms, survival duration, Karnofsky score, and lesion diameter of the patients demonstrating short and long survival are reported in On-line Tables 1 and 2. The MR images acquired before surgery (<1 week) were evaluated in this study.

All MR images were obtained on a 3T clinical MR imaging system (Tim Trio; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), equipped with a 12-channel phased array head coil. The imaging protocol included a 3-plane scout localizer, axial 3D T1-weighted magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition of gradient-echo images by using the following parameters: TR, 1760 ms; TE, 3.1 ms; TI, 950 ms; matrix size, 192 × 256; FOV, 25 × 25 cm2; and 1-mm section thickness; and FLAIR images with TR, 9420 ms; TE, 141 ms; TI, 2500 ms; matrix size, 192 × 256; and 3-mm thick contiguous sections with no gap. DWI data were acquired by using a single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging sequence with parallel imaging by using a generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition and an acceleration factor of 2. Other sequence parameters were as follows: FOV = 22 × 22 cm2; b=0, 1000 s/mm2; section thickness, 3 mm; number of sections, 40; acquisition time, 8 minutes.

For dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging, a bolus of gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance; Bracco Diagnostics, Princeton, New Jersey) was injected as the preloading dose of 0.07 mmol/kg. The preloading dose was administered to reduce the effect of contrast agent leakage on CBV measurements. A DSC T2*-weighted gradient-echo, echo-planar sequence was obtained during the second 0.07-mmol/kg bolus of intravenous contrast agent. The injection rate was 5 mL/s for all patients and was immediately followed by a bolus injection of saline (total of 20 mL at the same rate). DSC sequence parameters included the following: TR/TE, 2000/45 ms; FOV, 22 × 22 cm2; in-plane resolution, 1.72 × 1.72 × 3 mm3; slab of 20 sections covering the tumor region; and acquisition time of 1 minute 38 seconds. A long TR and a low flip angle were used to reduce the effect of changes in T1 relaxation from contrast agent leakage.22 Post-contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MPRAGE images were acquired after completion of the DSC sequence.

Image Processing

The rCBV was calculated from PWI data by using the intravascular indicator dilution algorithms described previously.23⇓–25 Data processing was performed by using PWI Task Card (Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts) on a Leonardo workstation (Siemens). MD maps were automatically generated by using the software tools available on the scanner by using a monoexponential fit to the multiple b-value images. Measurements were obtained by 2 radiologists (G.Ç. and F.K., with >4 years of experience reading brain MR imaging). We meticulously chose multiple ROIs from the enhancing part of the tumor, avoiding areas of cerebral blood vessels, calcifications, hemorrhage, and CSF-filled sulci to measure a reliable CBV value as proposed earlier.26–27 The ROIs were drawn and chosen in agreement by the 2 readers, thereby reducing any interobserver variability. The commonly used rCBVmax parameter28 was computed by calculating the mean CBV values from 3 circular ROIs measuring 30–50 mm2 from areas of visually high CBV as reported previously.26–27 For normalization, 3 circular ROIs of the same size were drawn in the contralateral normal-appearing white matter. A similar analysis method was used to investigate the minimum mean diffusivity. Three circular ROIs measuring 30–50 mm2 from the visually lowest MD values were used to compute MDmin, representing high cellularity as reported previously.13,17

Statistical Analysis

The long and short survival patient groups were compared by using a Student t test. A P value < .05 was considered significant. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate the predictive power of rCBVmax and MDmin for overall survival. Areas under the curve were computed. A cutoff value for each parameter was determined by maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to characterize and compare the groups with high-versus-low rCBVmax and high-versus-low MDmin in terms of overall survival. All statistical analyses were conducted by using PASW Statistics, Version 18 (IBM, Armonk, New York).

Results

Representative images of patients with GBM with long and short survival are shown in Fig 1. The contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images and FLAIR images from these patients look similar, showing heterogeneous peripheral enhancement and extensive surrounding FLAIR signal abnormality. All tumors showed prominent enhancement after IV contrast administration. The patient with short survival demonstrated higher rCBVmax compared with the patient who exhibited long survival.

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

Representative MR images and parametric maps from patients with GBM. The top row (A–D) shows images from a 66-year-old woman with GBM who survived for >58 months after gross total resection of her GBM in the left temporo-occipital lobe. Representative MR images from a 75-year-old man with a GBM in the left parietal lobe with only a 5-month survival are shown (E–H). Images of both patients demonstrate heterogeneous peripheral enhancement (A and E) and extensive surrounding FLAIR signal abnormality (B and F) on axial contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and FLAIR images, respectively. The patient with short survival has a higher CBV (G) (rCBVmax = 12.22) in comparison with the patient with long survival (C) (rCBVmax = 3.57). The MD maps from these patients (D and H) do not show any difference (6.50 × 10−4 mm2/s versus 6.80 × 10−4 mm2/s).

The rCBVmax values of patients with short survival (9.90 ± 4.01) were significantly higher compared with those of long survival (4.78 ± 1.30, P < .05). There was no significant difference in the MDmin values between the 2 groups: 0.80 ± 0.17 versus 0.75 ± 0.15 × 10−3mm2/s (Table).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Average ± SD, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of pretreatment rCBVmax and MDmin in patients with GBM demonstrating long (≥15 mo) survival and short (<15 mo) survival

Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that a rCBVmax cutoff value of 5.79 was the best parameter for predicting overall survival with an area under the curve of 0.93, sensitivity of 0.89, specificity of 0.90, positive predictive value of 0.89, and negative predictive value of 0.90 (Fig 2 and Table). The MDmin cutoff value of 8.35 × 10−4mm2/s, on the other hand, showed only a modest area under the curve of 0.55, sensitivity of 0.71, specificity of 0.47, positive predictive value of 0.56, and negative predictive value of 0.64 (Fig 2 and Table). A combination of rCBVmax and MDmin did not improve the prediction capability and had an area under the curve (0.93) similar to that of rCBVmax. Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated that GBMs with low rCBVmax (<5.79) had a median survival time of 23 ± 3.4 months, whereas GBMs with high rCBVmax (≥5.79) had a median survival time of 5 ± 1.9 months (Fig 3). There was a significant difference in patients with high rCBVmax and low rCBVmax (P < .001). For the DWI measurements, GBMs with low MDmin (<8.35 × 10−4mm2/s) had a median survival time of 14 ± 2.0 months, whereas GBMs with high MDmin (>8.35 × 10−4mm2/s) had a median survival time of 18 ± 1.4 months, and there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > .05) (Fig 4).

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

Receiver operative characteristic curves of rCBVmax (solid line) by using a rCBVmax cutoff value of 5.79. The area under the curve was 0.93. The receiver operating curve of MDmin (dotted line) by using a cutoff value of 8.35 × 10−4mm2/s demonstrated only a modest area under the curve of 0.55.

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

Kaplan-Meier curves for patients with low (<5.79, solid line) and high (≥5.79, dotted line) rCBVmax. GBMs with low rCBVmax had a median survival time of 23 ± 3.4 months, whereas GBMs with high rCBVmax had a median survival time of 5 ± 1.9 months (P < .001). Cum indicates cumulative.

Fig 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 4.

Kaplan-Meier curves for patients with GBM with low (<0.835 × 10−3mm2/s, solid line) and high (≥0.835 × 10−3mm2/s, dotted line) MDmin. GBMs with a low MDmin have a median survival time of 14 ± 2.0 months, whereas GBMs with a high MDmin have a median survival time of 18 ± 1.4 months. There is no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > .05). Cum indicates cumulative.

Discussion

Our study suggests that pretreatment rCBVmax can be used as a prognostic marker for overall survival in patients with GBM. In particular, patients with high pretreatment rCBVmax demonstrated lower survival in comparison with patients with low pretreatment rCBVmax, who exhibited longer survival of >15 months. These results could have a potential clinical benefit and in the future may aid in individualized treatment planning because patients with high pretreatment rCBVmax can be offered upfront alternative treatment strategies, including bevacizumab, immunotherapy, or other therapies targeted toward increased survival.

Conventional imaging characteristics of GBM, including location, size, and degree of enhancement; necrosis; and extent of edema, have been studied for prediction of survival.9⇓–11,29⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–36 Although contrast enhancement is generally used to estimate the extent of the tumor, it is clear from the literature that conventional radiologic findings, such as the absence of contrast enhancement, are not only poor predictors of tumor grade but may or may not be prognostic factors for either survival or progression-free survival.12,37 PWI is increasingly being used to assess microvascular changes associated with the tumor grade, and it is widely used to assess tumor angiogenesis and microvasculature.34,35,38 Law et al30 suggested that rCBV measurements in low-grade gliomas correlated more accurately with time to progression than the initial histopathologic grading of the tumor. Although Oh et al18 suggested that rCBV had no predictive value with respect to the prognosis in GBM, they evaluated GBM tumors after surgical resection; thus, it is unclear whether the extent of surgery played a role in determining the prognostic value in their study.18 Bisdas et al11 reported that there was no correlation among CBV, World Health Organization grade, and progression-free survival in a mixed population of gliomas. Similar to ours, findings of Mangla et al32 were that rCBV was useful for predicting progression-free survival in anaplastic astrocytomas, but not for grade III tumors with oligodendroglial components.

We observed that an rCBVmax threshold value of 5.79 was the best predictor for overall survival with a very high sensitivity and specificity. In other words, this threshold was evaluated as a prognostic index of survival in GBM and not for predicting tumor grade, for which a much lower rCBV threshold was reported by Bisdas et al11 (4.2), Lev et al29 (1.5), Law et al31 (1.75), and Mangla et al32 (2.55).

High-grade brain tumors are usually associated with high cellularity and therefore exhibit low MD values.15⇓–17 Previous studies15,16,39 reported that MDmin was a sensitive marker for prognosis and survival. The cutoff MD values used in these studies were 0.74 × 10−3 mm2/s, 0.90 × 10−3 mm2/s, 0.93 × 10−3 mm2/s, and 1.00 × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively.15⇓⇓–18 Higano et al16 studied 37 malignant astrocytic tumors, including 22 GBMs, and reported a significant negative correlation between MDmin and Ki-67, which may explain the poor prognosis of patients with lower MDmin. The authors of that study also reported that the MDmin (0.834 × 10−3mm2/s) of GBM was significantly lower than the MDmin (1.06 × 10−3mm2/s) of anaplastic astrocytomas. In another study, Murakami et al15 studied 79 malignant supratentorial astrocytic tumors, including 50 patients with GBMs, and observed that patients with an MDmin of >1.00 × 10−3mm2/s had better outcomes than patients with an MDmin of ≤1.00 × 10−3mm2/s. Yamasaki et al39 reported that MDmin also predicted overall survival in patients with GBMs who did not have a complete- or near-total resection of their tumors. We did not observe an MDmin cutoff value that could differentiate patients having short or long survival (Fig 4). However, in comparison with these previous studies, we studied a homogeneous population of patients with GBMs who had undergone gross total resection of their tumors, which may partially explain the difference in our results.

Because GBM is composed of prominent necrosis, nuclear atypia, cellular proliferation, and microvascular hyperplasia, the extent of necrosis and the amount of edema have been shown to negatively correlate with survival.5,40 Immunohistochemical staining for p53, Ki-67, and EGFR is generally used for differential diagnosis and grading of these tumors.41 Previous studies have shown that abnormal microvasculature may be associated with increased endothelial cellularity, proliferation, and tumor grade.42,43 Tumors with increased EGFR, Ki-67, and p53 staining are more invasive and exhibit a more malignant phenotype. A tumor-specific mutant of the EGFR, EGFRvIII, causes constitutive upregulation of the tyrosine kinase activity of the receptor and is frequently expressed in primary GBMs. EGFR signaling has, therefore, been the target for GBM therapy. It is also possible that rCBV measurements are revealing changes in microvascular attenuation that precede malignant transformation44 and may be indicative of poor prognosis as demonstrated in our study.

Previous survival analysis studies for patients with brain tumors have evaluated several factors: tumor grade, extent of resection, radiation dose, age, and Karnofsky score.5,6 Based on the results of some prospective clinical trials that evaluated patients with gliomas, the important prognostic factors for predicting outcome in gliomas are the extent of surgical resection, histologic results, and size of the lesion.12,45,46 Tumors not involving eloquent regions of the brain undergo gross total resection because it has been shown that maximal resection improves survival in patients with gliomas.12,45,46 Preoperative knowledge of the rCBVmax of a tumor may help to determine whether to biopsy or to resect, the aggressiveness of resection, the use of pre-/postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy and chemotherapy, and the frequency of follow-up examinations.

Although our study indicates the role of pretreatment rCBVmax as a potential imaging biomarker for predicting survival in GBM, the results should be interpreted in light of the limitations of the study. One was the use of hand-drawn ROIs for data analysis, which, though being simple and straightforward, tend to be subjective. Future studies involving semiautomated segmentation routines47,48 may be needed to analyze the data more objectively without any user bias. In addition, we did not evaluate other perfusion variables from the DSC data, such as cerebral blood flow and mean transit time values. Increasing the TR is only one of the methods to reduce the effects of T1, but it comes with a penalty of increased acquisition time. In addition to the simplistic measurements of MDmin, other parameters from diffusion imaging can be computed, such as fractional anisotropy and radial and axial diffusivity. It would be desirable to perform a multivariate analysis by using these varied imaging parameters to evaluate whether these additional parameters further increase the sensitivity and specificity in the overall prognosis of patients with GBM. The study was performed retrospectively, and the sample size for the Kaplan-Meier analysis was relatively small. The survival of patients with GBM can also be affected by other factors such as the location, tumor size, and Karnofsky score. A larger sample size would be necessary to perform a Kaplan-Meier analysis of the rCBVmax accounting for these confounding factors. We have limited the number of confounders, including selection of pure GBM (excluding patients with oligodendroglial features) and selection of patients with near-total resection of the mass, and restricted the analysis to tumors with a similar initial size in the 2 groups. A prospective study on a larger cohort of patients with GBM needs to be performed to further establish rCBV as a marker for overall survival in GBM.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that pretreatment rCBVmax may be a used as a sensitive prognostic marker for overall survival in patients with glioblastomas.

Footnotes

  • G. Çoban and S. Mohan contributed equally to this work.

  • Disclosures: Donald M. O'Rourke—UNRELATED: Medicolegal opinions, clinical neurosurgery only; Grants/Grants Pending: National Institutes of Health,* Comments: 1) RO1 and R21 applications on glioblastoma pathobiology and imaging; 2) Celldex Therapeutics sponsored imaging research, EGFRvIII and glioblastoma; Patents (planned, pending or issued): issued US patent,* Comments: EGFR/radiation treatment, issued December 1, 2009, US patent No. 7,625,558. Harish Poptani—UNRELATED: Consultancy: American College of Radiology, Image Metrix; Grants/Grants Pending: National Institutes of Health.* *Money paid to the institution.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ohgaki H,
    2. Kleihues P
    . Epidemiology and etiology of gliomas. Acta Neuropathol 2005;109:93–108
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Behin A,
    2. Hoang-Xuan K,
    3. Carpentier AF, et al
    . Primary brain tumours in adults. Lancet 2003;361:323–31
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Stark AM,
    2. Nabavi A,
    3. Mehdorn HM, et al
    . Glioblastoma multiforme: report of 267 cases treated at a single institution. Surg Neurol 2005;63:162–69
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Kleihues P,
    2. Ohgaki H
    . Primary and secondary glioblastomas: from concept to clinical diagnosis. Neuro Oncol 1999;1:44–51
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Lacroix M,
    2. Abi-Said D,
    3. Fourney DR, et al
    . A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection of resection and survival. J Neurosurg 2001;95:190–98
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mangiola A,
    2. Maira G,
    3. De Bonis P, et al
    . Glioblastoma multiforme in the elderly: a therapeutic challenge. J Neurooncol 2006;76:159–63
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Galanis E,
    2. Buckner J,
    3. Kimmel D, et al
    . Gene amplification as a prognostic factor in primary and secondary high-grade malignant gliomas. Int J Oncol 1998;13:717–24
    PubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Shinojima N,
    2. Tada K,
    3. Shiraishi S, et al
    . Prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer Res 2003;63:6962–70
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Law M,
    2. Young RJ,
    3. Babb JS, et al
    . Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2008;247:490–98
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Spampinato MV,
    2. Schiarelli C,
    3. Cianfoni A, et al
    . Correlation between cerebral blood volume measurements by perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and two-year progression-free survival in gliomas. Neuroradiol J 2013;26:385–95
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Bisdas S,
    2. Kirkpatrick M,
    3. Giglio P, et al
    . Cerebral blood volume measurements by perfusion-weighted MR imaging in gliomas: ready for prime time in predicting short-term outcome and recurrent disease? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:681–88
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bampoe J,
    2. Bernstein M
    . The role of surgery in low grade gliomas. J Neurooncol 1999;42:259–69
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Murakami R,
    2. Hirai T,
    3. Sugahara T, et al
    . Grading astrocytic tumors by using apparent diffusion coefficient parameters: superiority of a one versus two-parameter pilot method. Radiology 2009;251:838–45
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Bode MK,
    2. Ruohonen J,
    3. Nieminen MT, et al
    . Potential of diffusion imaging in brain tumors: a review. Acta Radiol 2006;47:585–94
    FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Murakami R,
    2. Sugahara T,
    3. Nakamura H, et al
    . Malignant supratentorial astrocytoma treated with postoperative radiation therapy: prognostic value of pretreatment quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 2007;243:493–99
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Higano S,
    2. Yun X,
    3. Kumabe T, et al
    . Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology 2006;241:839–46
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Nakamura H,
    2. Murakami R,
    3. Hirai T, et al
    . Can MRI-derived factors predict the survival in glioblastoma patients treated with postoperative chemoradiation therapy? Acta Radiol 2013;54:214–20
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Oh J,
    2. Henry RG,
    3. Pirzkall A, et al
    . Survival analysis in patients with glioblastoma multiforme: predictive value of choline-to-N-acetylaspartate index, apparent diffusion coefficient, and relative cerebral blood volume. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19:546–54
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Stupp R,
    2. Mason WP,
    3. van den Bent MJ, et al
    . Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005;352:987–96
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Paul I,
    2. Bhattacharya S,
    3. Chatterjee A, et al
    . Current understanding on EGFR and Wnt/β-catenin signaling in glioma and their possible crosstalk. Genes Cancer 2013;4:427–46
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Yiin JJ,
    2. Hu B,
    3. Schornack PA, et al
    . ZD6474, a multitargeted inhibitor for receptor tyrosine kinases, suppresses growth of gliomas expressing an epidermal growth factor receptor mutant, EGFRvIII, in the brain. Mol Cancer Ther 2010;9:929–41
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Johnson G,
    2. Wetzel SG,
    3. Cha S, et al
    . Measuring blood volume and vascular transfer constant from dynamic, T(2)*-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:961–68
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Knopp EA,
    2. Cha S,
    3. Johnson G, et al
    . Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 1999;211:791–98
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Rosen BR,
    2. Belliveau JW,
    3. Buchbinder BR, et al
    . Contrast agents and cerebral hemodynamics. Magn Reson Med 1991;19:285–92
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Rosen BR,
    2. Belliveau JW,
    3. Vevea JM, et al
    . Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med 1990;14:249–65
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Spampinato MV,
    2. Wooten C,
    3. Dorlon M, et al
    . Comparison of first-pass and second-bolus dynamic susceptibility perfusion MRI in brain tumors. Neuroradiology 2006;48:867–74
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Wetzel SG,
    2. Cha S,
    3. Johnson G, et al
    . Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology 2002;224:797–803
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Wang S,
    2. Kim S,
    3. Chawla S, et al
    . Differentiation between glioblastomas, solitary brain metastases, and primary cerebral lymphomas using diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:507–14
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Lev MH,
    2. Ozsunar Y,
    3. Henson JW, et al
    . Glial tumor grading and outcome prediction using dynamic spin-echo MR susceptibility mapping compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR: confounding effect of elevated rCBV of oligodendrogliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:214–21
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Law M,
    2. Oh S,
    3. Babb JS, et al
    . Low-grade gliomas: dynamic susceptibility weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging-prediction of patient clinical response. Radiology 2006;238:658–67
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Law M,
    2. Yang S,
    3. Babb JS, et al
    . Comparison of cerebral blood volume and vascular permeability from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with glioma grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:746–55
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Mangla R,
    2. Ginat DT,
    3. Kamalian S, et al
    . Correlation between progression free survival and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI perfusion in WHO grade III glioma subtypes. J Neurooncol 2014;116:325–31
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Hirai T,
    2. Murakami R,
    3. Nakamura H, et al
    . Prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging of high-grade astrocytomas: long-term follow-up study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1505–10
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Cha S,
    2. Tihan T,
    3. Crawford F, et al
    . Differentiation of low grade oligodendrogliomas from low-grade astrocytomas by using quantitative blood-volume measurements derived from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:266–73
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Essock-Burns E,
    2. Philips JJ,
    3. Molinaro AM, et al
    . Comparison of DSC-MRI post-processing techniques in predicting microvascular histopathology in patients newly diagnosed with GBM. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;38:388–400
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Morita N,
    2. Wang S,
    3. Chawla S, et al
    . Dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion weighted imaging in grading of non-enhancing astrocytomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:803–08
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Wu WC,
    2. Chen CY,
    3. Chung HW, et al
    . Discrepant MR spectroscopic and perfusion imaging results in a case of malignant transformation of cerebral glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:1775–78
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Nelson SJ
    . Assessment of therapeutic response and treatment planning for brain tumors using metabolic and physiological MRI. NMR Biomed 2011;24:734–49
    PubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Yamasaki F,
    2. Sugiyama K,
    3. Ohtaki M, et al
    . Glioblastoma treated with postoperative radiochemotherapy: prognostic value of apparent diffusion coefficient at MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 2010;73:532–37
    CrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Pierallini A,
    2. Bonamini M,
    3. Pantano P, et al
    . Radiological assessment of necrosis in glioblastoma: variability and prognostic value. Neuroradiology 1998;40:150–53
    CrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Ru P,
    2. Williams TM,
    3. Chakravarti A, et al
    . Tumor metabolism of malignant gliomas. Cancers 2013;5:1469–84
    CrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Miyagami M,
    2. Katayama Y
    . Angiogenesis of glioma: evaluation of ultrastructural characteristics of microvessels and tubular bodies (Weibel-Palade) in endothelial cells and immunohistochemical findings with VEGF and p53 protein. Med Mol Morphol 2005;38:36–42
    CrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Kapoor GS,
    2. Gocke TA,
    3. Chawla S, et al
    . Magnetic resonance perfusion weighted imaging defines angiogenic subtypes of oligodendroglioma according to1p19q and EGFR status. J Neurooncol 2009;92:373–86
    CrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Abdulrauf SI,
    2. Edvardsen K,
    3. Ho KL, et al
    . Vascular endothelial growth factor expression and vascular density as prognostic markers of survival in patients with low-grade astrocytoma. J Neurosurg 1998;88:513–20
    CrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Shaw EG,
    2. Tatter SB,
    3. Lesser GJ, et al
    . Current controversies in the radiotherapeutic management of adult low-grade glioma. Semin Oncol 2004;31:653–58
    CrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Stupp R,
    2. Baumert BG
    . Promises and controversies in the management of low-grade glioma. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1695–96
    FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Xie K,
    2. Yang J,
    3. Zhang ZG, et al
    . Semi-automated brain tumor and edema segmentation using MRI. Eur J Radiol 2005;56:12–19
    CrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Kaus MR,
    2. Warfield SK,
    3. Nabavi A, et al
    . Automated segmentation of MR images of brain tumors. Radiology 2001;218:586–91
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received August 29, 2014.
  • Accepted after revision December 14, 2014.
  • © 2015 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 36 (7)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 36, Issue 7
1 Jul 2015
  • 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.
Prognostic Value of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced and Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Patients with Glioblastomas
(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
Prognostic Value of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced and Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Patients with Glioblastomas
G. Çoban, S. Mohan, F. Kural, S. Wang, D.M. O'Rourke, H. Poptani
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jul 2015, 36 (7) 1247-1252; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4284

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Prognostic Value of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced and Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Patients with Glioblastomas
G. Çoban, S. Mohan, F. Kural, S. Wang, D.M. O'Rourke, H. Poptani
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jul 2015, 36 (7) 1247-1252; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4284
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
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • 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

  • Assessment of Heating on Titanium Alloy Cerebral Aneurysm Clips during 7T MRI
  • Quantitative Collateral Assessment on CTP in the Prediction of Stroke Etiology
  • Survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Membership on the Use and Value of Intracranial Vessel Wall MRI
Show more ADULT 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