Search

Objectives: To determine if gemistocytic grade II astrocytoma (GemA) and its MR imaging characteristics are associated with a shorter time-to-progression (TTP) compared with non-gemistocytic grade II astrocytoma (non-GemA).Materials and Methods: We enrolled 78 patients who were followed up more than 5 years (29 pathologically proven GemA and 49 non-GemA) during a 10-year period. Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC), and MR spectroscopy (MRS) and clinical data were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical and MR imaging features were analyzed as possible prognostic factors of high-grade transformation, and multivariate analysis of TTP was performed using Cox proportional modeling.Results: GemA showed more frequent high-grade features than non-GemA, including diffusion restriction (P < .001), increased choline/creatine (P = .02), and increased choline/NAA ratio (P = .015). Patients with GemA had a significantly shorter median TTP (53.1 vs 68 months; P < .001). A gemistocytic histopathology (hazard ratio = 3.42; P = .015) and low ADC (hazard ratio = 3.61; P = .001) were independently associated with a shorter TTP.Conclusions: GemA can present with MR imaging findings mimicking high-grade glioma at initial diagnosis and transforms to high-grade disease earlier than non-GemA. Low ADC on DWI might be useful in stratifying the risk of progression in patients with grade II astrocytoma.Key Points: • Gemistocytic grade II astrocytoma (GemA) showed more frequent high-grade features than non-GemA. • Patients with GemA had a significantly shorter median TTP than non-GemA. • Gemistocytic histopathology and low ADC were independently associated with shorter TTP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether diffusion and perfusion imaging parameters demonstrate different diagnostic values for predicting pseudoprogression between glioblastoma subgroups stratified by O6-mythylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status.Methods: We enrolled seventy-five glioblastoma patients that had presented with enlarged contrast-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) one month after completing concurrent chemoradiotherapy and undergoing MGMT promoter methylation testing. The imaging parameters included 10 or 90 % histogram cutoffs of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC10), normalized cerebral blood volume (nCBV90), and initial area under the time signal-intensity curve (IAUC90). The results of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) with cross-validation were compared between MGMT methylation and unmethylation groups.Results: MR imaging parameters demonstrated a trend toward higher accuracy in the MGMT promoter methylation group than in the unmethylation group (cross-validated AUCs = 0.70-0.95 and 0.56-0.87, respectively). The combination of MGMT methylation status with imaging parameters improved the AUCs from 0.70 to 0.75-0.90 for both readers in comparison with MGMT methylation status alone. The probability of pseudoprogression was highest (95.7 %) when nCBV90 was below 4.02 in the MGMT promoter methylation group.Conclusions: MR imaging parameters could be stronger predictors of pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients with the methylated MGMT promoter than in patients with the unmethylated MGMT promoter.Key Points: • The glioblastoma subgroup was stratified according to MGMT promoter methylation status. • Diagnostic values of diffusion and perfusion parameters for predicting pseudoprogression were compared. • Imaging parameters showed higher diagnostic accuracy in the MGMT promoter methylation group. • Imaging parameters were independent to MGMT promoter methylation status for predicting pseudoprogression. • Imaging biomarkers might demonstrate different diagnostic values according to MGMT promoter methylation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic superiority of parametric response mapping of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCPR) for predicting glioblastoma treatment response, compared to single time point measurement.Methods: Fifty post-treatment glioblastoma patients were enrolled. ADCPR was calculated from serial apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps acquired before and at the time of first detection of an enlarged contrast-enhancing lesion on voxel-by-voxel basis. The percentage-decrease in ADCPR and tenth percentile histogram cutoff value of ADC (ADC10) were compared at subsequent 3-month and 1-year follow-ups.Results: The percentage-decrease in ADCPR was significantly higher in the progression group (mean = 33.2-38.3 %) than in the stable-response group (mean = 9.7 %) at 3 months follow-up (corrected p < 0.001 for both readers). ADCPR significantly improved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve from 0.67 to 0.88 (corrected p = 0.037) and from 0.70 to 0.92 (corrected p = 0.020) for both readers, respectively, compared to ADC10 at 3-month follow-up, but did not significantly improve at 1-year follow-up. The inter-reader agreement was higher for ADCPR than ADC10 (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.93 versus 0.86).Conclusion: Voxel-based ADCPR appears to be a superior imaging biomarker than ADC, particularly for predicting early tumour progression in patients with glioblastoma.Key Points: • Treatment response pattern of glioblastoma was evaluated using voxel-based ADCPR and ADC10. • Voxel-based ADCPR was more accurate in predicting treatment response pattern than ADC10. • Inter-reader agreement was higher in ADCPR calculation than in ADC10 calculation. • Voxel-based ADCPR can be a predictor of early treatment response pattern for glioblastoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]