4.5 Article

Relative cerebral blood volume measurements of low-grade gliomas predict patient outcome in a multi-institution setting

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages 215-220

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.11.005

Keywords

Brain tumours; Perfusion; rCBV; Outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/purpose: The prognostic value of defining subcategories of gliomas is still controversial. This study aims to determine the utility of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) in predicting clinical response in patients with low-grade glioma at multiple institutions. Materials and methods: Sixty-nine patients were studied with dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI at two institutions. The pathologic diagnoses of the low-grade gliomas were 34 astrocytomas, 20 oligodendroglioma, 9 oligoastrocytomas, 1 ganglioglioma and 5 with indeterminate histology. Wilcoxon tests were used to compare patients in different response categories with respect to baseline rCBV. Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank tests were used to predict the association of rCBV with time to progression. Results: At both institutions, patients with an adverse event (progressive disease or death) had a significantly higher baseline rCBV than those without (complete response or stable disease) (p value = 0.0138). The odds ratio for detecting an adverse event when using rCBV was 1.87 (95% confidence interval: 1.14-3.08). rCBV was significantly negatively associated with time to progression (p = 0.005). The median time to progression among subjects with rCBV > 1.75 was 365 days, while there was 95% confidence that the median time to progression was at least 889 days among subjects with rCBV < 1.75. Conclusion: Our study suggests not only that rCBV measurements correlate well with time to progression or death, but also that the findings can be replicated across institutions, which supports the application of rCBV as an adjunct to pathology in predicting glioma biology. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available