Different diagnostic values of imaging parameters to predict pseudoprogression in glioblastoma subgroups stratified by MGMT promoter methylation.

<bold>Objectives: </bold>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.<bold>Methods: </bold>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.<bold>Results: </bold>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.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>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.<bold>Key Points: </bold>• 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]