Clinically Relevant Imaging Features for MGMT Promoter Methylation in Multiple Glioblastoma Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Esteller M,
   3. Herman JG

   . Generating mutations but providing chemosensitivity: the role of O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase in human cancer. Oncogene 2004;23:1–8 doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1207316 pmid:14712205

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Hegi ME,
   3. Diserens AC,
   4. Gorlia T, et al

   . MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005;352:997–1003 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043331 pmid:15758010

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Esteller M,
   3. Garcia-Foncillas J,
   4. Andion E, et al

   . Inactivation of the DNA-repair gene MGMT and the clinical response of gliomas to alkylating agents. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1350–54 doi:10.1056/NEJM200011093431901 pmid:11070098

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Brandes AA,
   3. Tosoni A,
   4. Franceschi E, et al

   . Recurrence pattern after temozolomide concomitant with and adjuvant to radiotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma: correlation with MGMT promoter methylation status. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1275–79 doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.19.4969 pmid:19188675

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Weller M,
   3. Tabatabai G,
   4. Kastner B, et al

   ; DIRECTOR Study Group. MGMT promoter methylation is a strong prognostic biomarker for benefit from Dose-Intensified Temozolomide Rechallenge in Progressive Glioblastoma: the DIRECTOR trial. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21:2057–64 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2737 pmid:25655102

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Bell EH,
   3. Pugh SL,
   4. McElroy JP, et al

   . Molecular-based recursive partitioning analysis model for glioblastoma in the temozolomide era: a correlative analysis based on NRG oncology RTOG 0525. JAMA Oncol 2017;3:784–92 doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6020 pmid:28097324

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Perry JR,
   3. Laperriere N,
   4. O'Callaghan CJ, et al

   ; Trial Investigators. Short-course radiation plus temozolomide in elderly patients with glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1027–37 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1611977 pmid:28296618

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Zarnett OJ,
   3. Sahgal A,
   4. Gosio J, et al

   . Treatment of elderly patients with glioblastoma: a systematic evidence-based analysis. JAMA Neurol 2015;72:589–96 doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3739 pmid:25822375

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Brandes AA,
   3. Franceschi E,
   4. Tosoni A, et al

   . MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2192–97 doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14.8163 pmid:18445844

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Weller M,
    3. Cloughesy T,
    4. Perry JR, et al

    . Standards of care for treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: are we there yet? Neuro Oncol 2013;15:4–27 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos273 pmid:23136223

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Li HY,
    3. Sun CR,
    4. He M, et al

    . Correlation between tumor location and clinical properties of glioblastomas in frontal and temporal lobes. World Neurosurg 2018;112:e407–14 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.055 pmid:29355809

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Han Y,
    3. Yan LF,
    4. Wang XB, et al

    . Structural and advanced imaging in predicting MGMT promoter methylation of primary glioblastoma: a region of interest based analysis. BMC Cancer 2018;18:215 doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4114-2 pmid:29467012

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Xi YB,
    3. Guo F,
    4. Xu ZL, et al

    . Radiomics signature: a potential biomarker for the prediction of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;47:1380–87 doi:10.1002/jmri.25860 pmid:28926163

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Kanas VG,
    3. Zacharaki EI,
    4. Thomas GA, et al

    . Learning MRI-based classification models for MGMT methylation status prediction in glioblastoma. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2017;140:249–57 doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.12.018 pmid:28254081

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Jiang S,
    3. Rui Q,
    4. Wang Y, et al

    . Discriminating MGMT promoter methylation status in patients with glioblastoma employing amide proton transfer-weighted MRI metrics. Eur Radiol 2018;28:2115–23 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-5182-4 pmid:29234914

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Choi YS,
    3. Ahn SS,
    4. Lee HJ, et al

    . The initial area under the curve derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI improves prognosis prediction in glioblastoma with unmethylated MGMT promoter. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1528–35 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5265 pmid:28642265

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Korfiatis P,
    3. Kline TL,
    4. Coufalova L, et al

    . MRI texture features as biomarkers to predict MGMT methylation status in glioblastomas. Med Phys 2016;43:2835–44 doi:10.1118/1.4948668 pmid:27277032

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Kickingereder P,
    3. Bonekamp D,
    4. Nowosielski M, et al

    . Radiogenomics of glioblastoma: machine learning-based classification of molecular characteristics by using multiparametric and multiregional MR imaging features. Radiology 2016;281:907–18 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016161382 pmid:27636026

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    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 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016151913 pmid:27120357

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Rundle-Thiele D,
    3. Day B,
    4. Stringer B, et al

    . Using the apparent diffusion coefficient to identifying MGMT promoter methylation status early in glioblastoma: importance of analytical method. J Med Radiat Sci 2015;62:92–98 doi:10.1002/jmrs.103 pmid:26229673

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    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
22. 22.↵
    2. Sunwoo L,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Park CK, et al

    . Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient values measured by diffusion MRI and MGMT promoter methylation semiquantitatively analyzed with MS-MLPA in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37:351–58 doi:10.1002/jmri.23838 pmid:23023975

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    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
24. 24.↵
    2. Romano A,
    3. Calabria LF,
    4. Tavanti F, et al

    . Apparent diffusion coefficient obtained by magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic marker in glioblastomas: correlation with MGMT promoter methylation status. Eur Radiol 2013;23:513–20 doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2601-4 pmid:22875158

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Moon WJ,
    3. Choi JW,
    4. Roh HG, et al

    . Imaging parameters of high grade gliomas in relation to the MGMT promoter methylation status: the CT, diffusion tensor imaging, and perfusion MR imaging. Neuroradiology 2012;54:555–63 doi:10.1007/s00234-011-0947-y pmid:21833736

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Iliadis G,
    3. Kotoula V,
    4. Chatzisotiriou A, et al

    . Volumetric and MGMT parameters in glioblastoma patients: survival analysis. BMC Cancer 2012;12:3 doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-3 pmid:22214427

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Ellingson BM,
    3. Cloughesy TF,
    4. Pope WB, et al

    . Anatomic localization of O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylated and unmethylated tumors: a radiographic study in 358 de novo human glioblastomas. Neuroimage 2012;59:908–16 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.076 pmid:22001163

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Carrillo JA,
    3. Lai A,
    4. Nghiemphu PL, et al

    . Relationship between tumor enhancement, edema, IDH1 mutational status, MGMT promoter methylation, and survival in glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1349–55 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2950 pmid:22322613

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    2. Li WB,
    3. Tang K,
    4. Zhang W, et al

    . Relationship between magnetic resonance imaging and molecular pathology in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011;124:2589–92 pmid:22040408

    PubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Drabycz S,
    3. Roldán G,
    4. de Robles P, et al

    . An analysis of image texture, tumor location, and MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma using magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 2010;49:1398–405 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.049 pmid:19796694

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Levner I,
    3. Drabycz S,
    4. Roldan G, et al

    . Predicting MGMT methylation status of glioblastomas from MRI texture. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2009;12(Pt 2):522–30 pmid:20426152

    PubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Eoli M,
    3. Menghi F,
    4. Bruzzone MG, et al

    . Methylation of O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase and loss of heterozygosity on 19q and/or 17p are overlapping features of secondary glioblastomas with prolonged survival. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:2606–13 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2184 pmid:17473190

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Altman DG,
    4. Tetzlaff J, et al

    . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65–94 pmid:19622512

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Louis DN,
    3. Ohgaki H,
    4. Wiestler OD, et al

    . The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 2007;114:97–109 doi:10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4 pmid:17618441

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Louis DN,
    3. Perry A,
    4. Reifenberger G, et al

    . The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 pmid:27157931

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Whiting PF,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. Westwood ME, et al

    ; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid:22007046

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    2. Higgins J,
    3. Green S

    . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0Accessed October 9, 2017. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://handbook-5–1.cochrane.org/. . Updated March 2011Accessed October 9, 2017.
38. 38.↵
    2. Devillé WL,
    3. Buntinx F,
    4. Bouter LM, et al

    . Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:9 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-2-9 pmid:12097142

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Suh CH,
    3. Park SH

    . Successful publication of systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:5–6 doi:10.3348/kjr.2016.17.1.5 pmid:26798211

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Kim KW,
    3. Lee J,
    4. Choi SH, et al

    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers, Part 1: general guidance and tips. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1175–87 doi:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1175 pmid:26576106

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Lee J,
    3. Kim KW,
    4. Choi SH, et al

    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers, Part 2: statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1188–96 doi:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1188 pmid:26576107

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Deeks JJ,
    3. Macaskill P,
    4. Irwig L

    . The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–93 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 pmid:16085191

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
43. 43.↵
    2. Wick W,
    3. Meisner C,
    4. Hentschel B, et al

    . Prognostic or predictive value of MGMT promoter methylation in gliomas depends on IDH1 mutation. Neurology 2013;81:1515–22 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a95680 pmid:24068788

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    2. van den Bent MJ,
    3. Erdem-Eraslan L,
    4. Idbaih A, et al

    . MGMT-STP27 methylation status as predictive marker for response to PCV in anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas: a report from EORTC study 26951. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:5513–22 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1157 pmid:23948976

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    2. Trikalinos TA,
    3. Balion CM,
    4. Coleman CI, et al

    . Chapter 8: meta-analysis of test performance when there is a “gold standard”. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(Suppl 1):S56–66 doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2029-1 pmid:22648676

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Deeks JJ,
    2. Bossuyt PM,
    3. Gatsonis C

    , eds. 2013 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, Version 1.0.0Accessed October 9, 2017. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://srdta.cochrane.org/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed October 9, 2017.