4.5 Article

Prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging of high-grade astrocytomas: Long-term follow-up study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1505-1510

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1121

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although the prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging in various gliomas has been investigated, that in high-grade astrocytomas alone has not been fully evaluated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively whether the tumor maximum relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) on pretreatment perfusion MR imaging is of prognostic value in patients with high-grade astrocytoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1999 and December 2002, 49 patients (30 men, 19 women; age range, 23-76 years) with supratentorial high-grade astrocytoma underwent MR imaging before the inception of treatment. The patient age, sex, symptom duration, neurologic function, mental status, Karnofsky Performance Scale, extent of surgery, histopathologic diagnosis, tumor component enhancement, and maximum rCBV were assessed to identify factors affecting survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, the logrank test, and the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model were used to evaluate prognostic factors. RESULTS: The maximum rCBV was significantly higher in the 31 patients with glioblastoma multiforme than in the 18 with anaplastic astrocytoma (P < .03). The 2-year overall survival rate was 67% for 27 patients with a low (<= 2.3) and 9% for 22 patients with a high (> 2.3) maximum rCBV value (P < .001). Independent important prognostic factors were the histologic diagnosis (hazard ratio = 9.707; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.163-29.788), maximum rCBV (4.739; 95% CI, 1.950-11.518), extent of surgery (2.692; 95% CI, 1.196-6.061), and sex (2.632; 95% CI, 1.153-6.010). CONCLUSION: The maximum rCBV at pretreatment perfusion MR imaging is a useful clinical prognostic biomarker for survival in patients with high-grade astrocytoma.

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