1. Preoperative relative cerebral blood volume analysis in gliomas predicts survival and mitigates risk of biopsy sampling error
- Author
-
Stephen J. Monteith, Sarah Jost Fouke, Johnny B. Delashaw, Valerie Ader, Marc R. Mayberg, Charles Cobbs, Brian Aguedan, Tara Benkers, Steven W. Rostad, Xu Feng, Ryder P. Gwinn, Brendan J. McCullough, Daniel Susanto, John W. Henson, Bart P. Keogh, and David W. Newell
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Cancer Research ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Neurology ,Biopsy ,Kaplan-Meier Estimate ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Risk Factors ,Glioma ,Medicine ,Cerebral Blood Volume ,Humans ,Survival analysis ,Aged ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,Blood Volume Determination ,business.industry ,Proportional hazards model ,Brain Neoplasms ,Hazard ratio ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Cerebral blood volume ,Oncology ,Preoperative Period ,Histopathology ,Female ,Neurology (clinical) ,Radiology ,Neoplasm Grading ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
Appropriate management of adult gliomas requires an accurate histopathological diagnosis. However, the heterogeneity of gliomas can lead to misdiagnosis and undergrading, especially with biopsy. We evaluated the role of preoperative relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) analysis in conjunction with histopathological analysis as a predictor of overall survival and risk of undergrading. We retrospectively identified 146 patients with newly diagnosed gliomas (WHO grade II–IV) that had undergone preoperative MRI with rCBV analysis. We compared overall survival by histopathologically determined WHO tumor grade and by rCBV using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and the Cox proportional hazards model. We also compared preoperative imaging findings and initial histopathological diagnosis in 13 patients who underwent biopsy followed by subsequent resection. Survival curves by WHO grade and rCBV tier similarly separated patients into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups with shorter survival corresponding to higher grade or rCBV tier. The hazard ratio for WHO grade III versus II was 3.91 (p = 0.018) and for grade IV versus II was 11.26 (p
- Published
- 2017