4.7 Article

Incremental Prognostic Value of ADC Histogram Analysis over MGMT Promoter Methylation Status in Patients with Glioblastoma

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 281, 期 1, 页码 175-184

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016151913

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate the incremental prognostic value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis over oxygen 6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status in patients with glioblastoma and the correlation between ADC parameters and MGMT status. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was approved by institutional review board, and informed consent was waived. A total of 112 patients with glioblastoma were divided into training (74 patients) and test (38 patients) sets. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed with ADC parameters, MGMT status, and other clinical factors. Multivariate Cox regression models with and without ADC parameters were constructed. Model performance was assessed with c index and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses for 12-and 16-month OS and 12-month PFS in the training set and validated in the test set. ADC parameters were compared according to MGMT status for the entire cohort. Results: By using ADC parameters, the c indices and diagnostic accuracies for 12- and 16-month OS and 12-month PFS in the models showed significant improvement, with the exception of c indices in the models for PFS (P,< .05 for all) in the training set. In the test set, the diagnostic accuracy was improved by using ADC parameters and was significant, with the 25th and 50th percentiles of ADC for 16-month OS (P = .040 and P = .047) and the 25th percentile of ADC for 12-month PFS (P = .026). No significant correlation was found between ADC parameters and MGMT status. Conclusion: ADC histogram analysis had incremental prognostic value over MGMT promoter methylation status in patients with glioblastoma. (C) RSNA, 2016

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

4.7
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