4.7 Article

High cerebral blood volume in human gliomas predicts deletion of chromosome 1p: Preliminary results of molecular studies in gliomas with elevated perfusion

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 1113-1119

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20920

关键词

molecular deletions; glioma; perfusion MRI; chromosome; neovascularity

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA 093992, R01 CA 111996] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine if increased perfusion using dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI (DSC MRI) in gliomas may be predictive of 1p19q deletions. Loss of heterozygosity of chromosomes 1p and 19q confers responsiveness to chemotherapy improving survival in gliomas. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 16 patients who had DSC MRI and molecular studies of their excised gliomas for 1p19q deletions. Allelic status was assessed by loss of heterozygosity using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). DNA was extracted from paraffin curls of brain tumor sections and nail clippings. Relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) measurements were then statistically compared with the presence of lp and 19q deletions. Results: Patients with 1p19q deletions (N = 7) demonstrated rCBV values of 10.54 +/- 2.93. Patients without 1p deletions (N = 9) had rCBVvalues of 4.84 +/- 2.4 (P= 0.012). Logistic regression demonstrated that rCBV was able to predict the presence of a lp deletion to significance levels of 0.038 and 0.044, adjusted and not adjusted for age and sex, respectively. The kappa coefficient for the agreement between. predicted deletion status using rCBV and the truedeletion status was 0.746 (P = 0.0028). Deletions of 19q alone, or together with lp deletions, were not associated with high rCBV. Conclusion: Histopathologic, molecular, and imaging evidence supports increased neovascularity in gliomas with lp deletions in this preliminary study. We propose a diagnostic algorithm to obtain molecular studies in gliomas demonstrating high rCBV.

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