4.5 Article

Diagnostic Dilemma of Pseudoprogression in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Glioblastomas: The Role of Assessing Relative Cerebral Blood Flow Volume and Oxygen-6-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase Promoter Methylation Status

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 382-387

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2286

关键词

-

资金

  1. Samsung Biomedical Research Institute [SBRI C-B0-303-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Methylation of the MGMT gene promoter is associated with a favorable prognosis in adult patients with GBM treated with TMZ. We determined the incidence of pseudoprogression according to the MGMT methylation status and the potential value of DSC perfusion MR images for predicting pseudoprogression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: New or enlarged enhancing lesions after CCRT in adult patients with newly diagnosed GBMs were prospectively assessed by measuring their rCBV by using DSC perfusion MR images. Tumor tissue was assayed to determine MGMT promoter methylation status. All patients were regularly followed up at an interval of 2 months by MR images, including DSC perfusion MR images. RESULTS: Ninety eligible patients were enrolled in this study. After CCRT, new or enlarged enhanced lesions were found in 59 of 90 patients, which were subsequently classified as pseudoprogression (26 patients, 28.9%) and real progression (33 patients, 36.7%). Overall, there was a significant difference in the mean rCBV between pseudoprogression and real tumor progression (P = .003). The ROC curve revealed that an rCBV ratio >1.47 had an 81.5% sensitivity and a 77.8% specificity. The unmethylated MGMT promoter group had a significant difference of mean rCBV between pseudoprogression and real progression (P = .009), though the methylated MGMT promoter group had no significant difference (P = .258). CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that rCBV measured by DSC perfusion MR images has a differential impact on the predictability of pseudoprogression in patients with GBM.

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