4.5 Article

Recurrent high-grade glioma treated with bevacizumab: prognostic value of MGMT methylation, EGFR status and pretreatment MRI in determining response and survival

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 115, 期 2, 页码 267-276

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-013-1225-0

关键词

High-grade glioma; Bevacizumab; Anti-angiogenic therapy; MRI biomarkers; Tissue biomarkers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although bevacizumab represented an important advance in treatment of recurrent high-grade gliomas (HGG), responses occur in fewer than half of patients. There are no validated biomarkers for anti-angiogenic therapy that are available for routine clinical use. We assessed the prognostic values of imaging and molecular markers in this patient population. MRI scans from 191 patients with recurrent HGG obtained prior to initiating bevacizumab were reviewed for areas of enhancement, necrosis, T2/FLAIR abnormality, and ADC values. Serial MRI scans following the initiation of bevacizumab were evaluated for response and progression. Non-radiographic markers including EGFR and MGMT status were also assessed with respect to response and patient survival. 65 of 191 patients (34 %) showed complete or partial response at the time of their best response MRI and demonstrated longer progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to the group without response (PFS: 6.9 vs 3.5 months, OS: 10.9 vs 6.1 months). Minimum ADC values within enhancing and non-enhancing regions were lower in responders compared to those of non-responders (1,099 vs 984 x 10(-6) mm(2)/s, p = 0.006). Smaller enhancing area was associated with longer OS (HR = 1.99, p = 0.017). The ratio of T2/FLAIR to enhancing area was prognostic of OS for only the Grade III HGG subgroup (HR = 0.14, p = 0.004). Area of enhancing tumor at baseline can stratify survival in patients with recurrent HGG treated with bevacizumab. The extent of edema relative to enhancing area may have a prognostic role specific to Grade III HGG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据