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

Abstract

IAUC can be a useful prognostic imaging biomarker in patients with glioblastoma with known status, improving prediction of glioblastoma prognosis with the unmethylated promoter status.

Conventional and advanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with high-grade glioma

“…87 The same group also reported that the initial area under the time-to-signal intensity curve from DCE imaging stratifies survival in promoter unmethylated MGMT GBM, but not in methylated tumors. 89 Arecent study combined both structural and physiologic MR imaging to derive an accurate marker for MGMT promoter methylation status in 92 patients with GBM. The authors found that MGMT promoter methylation was associated with increased ADC and decreased rCBF(from ASL imaging).…”

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

“…25 One study was prospective in design. 26 Twenty studies were retrospective, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]27,28,[30][31][32] and 1 study did not explicitly state the design. 29 Study enrollment was consecutive in 3 studies 16,18,25 and not explicit in the remaining studies.…”

“…26 Twenty studies were retrospective, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]27,28,[30][31][32] and 1 study did not explicitly state the design. 29 Study enrollment was consecutive in 3 studies 16,18,25 and not explicit in the remaining studies. Fifteen of 22 studies used methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction as a reference standard to detect MGMT methylation, 11,[14][15][16][19][20][21][22][23][24]27,28,[30][31][32] with the other studies using DNA methylation analysis, 18 pyrosequencing, 13 immunohistochemical staining, 29 or multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification, 26 with the method not being stated in 3 studies.…”

“…Ten studies used 3T scanners, 12,13,15,16,[18][19][20][21]23,25 5 studies used 1.5T scanners, 22,24,[29][30][31] 3 studies used 1.5T and 3T scanners, 17,27,28 and 4 studies did not state the scanner strength. 11,14,26,32 A variety of different MR imaging techniques was used to predict MGMT promoter methylation: conventional MR imaging in 11 studies, 11,13,14,17,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32] DWI in 4 studies, 19,20,22,24 CT/DWI/DTI/DSC in 1 study, 25 DWI/DSC/SWI in 1 study, 18 DCE/DTI in 1 study, 21 DWI/arterial spin-labeling in 1 study, 12 DSC in 1 study, 23 DCE in 1 study, 16 and amide proton transfer in 1 study. 15 Five studies used radiomics approaches from machine learning-based classification.…”

“…13,14,17,18,31 MR imaging was interpreted by 1-3 readers, with the level of experience of the readers ranging from 3 to 25 years. In 14 of 22 studies, the readers were blinded to the MGMT promoter methylation status of patients [11][12][13][14]16,17,20,21,25,[28][29][30][31][32] ; however, this was not stated in the remaining studies.…”