The Initial Area Under the Curve Derived from Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Improves Prognosis Prediction in Glioblastoma with Unmethylated MGMT Promoter

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Stupp R,
   3. Mason WP,
   4. van den Bent MJ, et al

   ; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor and Radiotherapy Groups, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005;352:987–96 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043330 pmid:15758009

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Wangaryattawanich P,
   3. Hatami M,
   4. Wang J, et al

   . Multicenter imaging outcomes study of The Cancer Genome Atlas glioblastoma patient cohort: imaging predictors of overall and progression-free survival. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1525–37 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov117 pmid:26203066

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Pope WB,
   3. Sayre J,
   4. Perlina A, et al

   . MR imaging correlates of survival in patients with high-grade gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2466–74 pmid:16286386

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Choi YS,
   3. Ahn SS,
   4. Kim DW, et al

   . Incremental prognostic value of ADC histogram analysis over MGMT promoter methylation status in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology 2016;281:175–84
5. 5.↵
   2. Hegi ME,
   3. Diserens AC,
   4. Godard S, et al

   . Clinical trial substantiates the predictive value of O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation in glioblastoma patients treated with temozolomide. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:1871–74 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-03-0384 pmid:15041700

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Law M,
   3. Young RJ,
   4. Babb JS, et al

   . Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2008;247:490–98 doi:10.1148/radiol.2472070898 pmid:18349315

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Nguyen TB,
   3. Cron GO,
   4. Mercier JF, et al

   . Preoperative prognostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-derived contrast transfer coefficient and plasma volume in patients with cerebral gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:63–69 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4006 pmid:24948500

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Choi YS,
   3. Kim DW,
   4. Lee SK, et al

   . The added prognostic value of preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI histogram analysis in patients with glioblastoma: analysis of overall and progression-free survival. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2235–41 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4449 pmid:26338911

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Cheng HL

   . Improved correlation to quantitative DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic parameters using a modified initial area under the uptake curve (mIAUC) approach. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30:864–72 doi:10.1002/jmri.21916 pmid:19787732

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Chung WJ,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Kim N, et al

    . Recurrent glioblastoma: optimum area under the curve method derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2013;269:561–68 doi:10.1148/radiol.13130016 pmid:23878286

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Hamilton JD,
    3. Lin J,
    4. Ison C, et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion processing for neuroradiologists: model-dependent analysis may not be necessary for determining recurrent high-grade glioma versus treatment effect. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:686–93 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4190 pmid:25500312

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Prah MA,
    3. Stufflebeam SM,
    4. Paulson ES, et al

    . Repeatability of standardized and normalized relative CBV in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1654–61 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4374 pmid:26066626

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Paulson ES,
    3. Schmainda KM

    . Comparison of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR methods: recommendations for measuring relative cerebral blood volume in brain tumors. Radiology 2008;249:601–13 doi:10.1148/radiol.2492071659 pmid:18780827

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Narang J,
    3. Jain R,
    4. Arbab AS, et al

    . Differentiating treatment-induced necrosis from recurrent/progressive brain tumor using nonmodel-based semiquantitative indices derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR perfusion. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:1037–46 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nor075 pmid:21803763

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Walker-Samuel S,
    3. Leach MO,
    4. Collins DJ

    . Evaluation of response to treatment using DCE-MRI: the relationship between initial area under the gadolinium curve (IAUGC) and quantitative pharmacokinetic analysis. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:3593–602 doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/14/021 pmid:16825751

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Choi YS,
    3. Lee HJ,
    4. Ahn SS, et al

    . Primary central nervous system lymphoma and atypical glioblastoma: differentiation using the initial area under the curve derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR and the apparent diffusion coefficient. Eur Radiol 2017;27:1344–51 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4484-2 pmid:27436023

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Appin CL,
    3. Gao J,
    4. Chisolm C, et al

    . Glioblastoma with oligodendroglioma component (GBM-O): molecular genetic and clinical characteristics. Brain Pathol 2013;23:454–61 doi:10.1111/bpa.12018 pmid:23289977

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    Vasari MRI Visual Feature Guide. The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) Web site. https://wiki.cancerimagingarchive.net/dis-play/Public/VASARI+Research+Project. . Published March 25, 2015Accessed December 12, 2015.
19. 19.↵
    2. Wen PY,
    3. Macdonald DR,
    4. Reardon DA, et al

    . Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963–72 doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 pmid:20231676

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Contal C,
    3. O'Quigley J

    . An application of changepoint methods in studying the effect of age on survival in breast cancer. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 1999;30:253–70

    CrossRef
21. 21.↵
    2. Pencina MJ,
    3. D' Agostino RB,
    4. D' Agostino RB, et al

    . Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 2008;27:157–72

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Jain R,
    3. Poisson LM,
    4. Gutman D, et al

    . Outcome prediction in patients with glioblastoma by using imaging, clinical, and genomic biomarkers: focus on the nonenhancing component of the tumor. Radiology 2014;272:484–93 doi:10.1148/radiol.14131691 pmid:24646147

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Ishwaran H,
    3. Kogalur UB,
    4. Blackstone EH, et al

    . Random survival forests. The Annals of Applied Statistics 2008;2:841–60 doi:10.1214/08-AOAS169

    CrossRefWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Roberts C,
    3. Issa B,
    4. Stone A, et al

    . Comparative study into the robustness of compartmental modeling and model-free analysis in DCE-MRI studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:554–63 doi:10.1002/jmri.20529 pmid:16506143

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Ryoo I,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Kim JH, et al

    . Cerebral blood volume calculated by dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging: preliminary correlation study with glioblastoma genetic profiles. PLoS One 2013;8:e71704 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071704 pmid:23977117

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Ahn SS,
    3. Shin NY,
    4. Chang JH, et al

    . Prediction of methylguanine methyltransferase promoter methylation in glioblastoma using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance and diffusion tensor imaging. J Neurosurg 2014;121:367–73 doi:10.3171/2014.5.JNS132279 pmid:24949678

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Mills SJ,
    3. Patankar TA,
    4. Haroon HA, et al

    . Do cerebral blood volume and contrast transfer coefficient predict prognosis in human glioma? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:853–58 pmid:16611778

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    2. Bammer R

    . MR and CT Perfusion and Pharmacokinetic Imaging: Clinical Applications and Theoretical Principles: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2016