Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast‑enhanced Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters for Predicting Promoter Methylation and Prognostic Value in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Glioblastoma

Overview

Journal Oncol Lett

Specialty Oncology

Date 2024 Nov 4

PMID 39493435

Authors

Daiki Chida

Yoshiko Okita

Reina Utsugi

Hideki Kuroda

Ryuichi Hirayama

Noriyuki Kijima

Atsuko Arisawa

Naoki Kagawa

Yonehiro Kanemura

Shinichi Yoshimura

Noriyuki Tomiyama

Haruhiko Kishima

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation is an important clinical biomarker of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Previous radiological studies using dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) perfusion have aimed to predict methylation status non-invasively in gliomas with radiological characteristics. The possibility of predicting methylation status using DSC-MRI perfusion with a radiological approach remains controversial. The present study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of MRI perfusion parameters as non-invasive markers to predict methylation status and prognosis in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. Thus, 50 patients with histologically confirmed primary glioblastoma, -wildtype who underwent tumor resection at Osaka University Hospital (Suita, Japan) between January 2017 and January 2023 were included in this study. The mean cerebral blood volume (CBV) ratio (rCBV) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) ratio (rCBF) for tumors with methylation (mean rCBV:2.09 and mean rCBF:3.08) were significantly higher compared with those for tumors without methylation (mean rCBV:1.33 and mean rCBF:1.85; P<0.05). While patients with methylation had longer progression-free survival (PFS) compared with those without methylation (P<0.05), there was no significant difference in OS with or without methylation (P=0.06). By contrast, there was no association between MRI perfusion parameters and OS or PFS in patients with glioblastoma. Furthermore, the association between CBV, CBF, promotor methylation status, OS, and PFS were explored. There was no significant prognostic difference between low vascularity tumors (rCBV <1.3 or rCBF <1.8) with or without methylation. On the other hand, high vascularity tumors (rCBF ≥1.8) with promotor methylation were associated to longer OS and PFS compared with those without. However, there was no association between methylation status and OS or PFS in patients with high rCBV (rCBV ≥1.3). The present study indicated that CBV and CBF could be used to predict the methylation status in glioblastomas. However, the prognostic value of tumor vascularity and methylation status may be limited.

References

Li Z, Bai H, Sun Q, Li Q, Liu L, Zou Y . Multiregional radiomics features from multiparametric MRI for prediction of MGMT methylation status in glioblastoma multiforme: A multicentre study. Eur Radiol. 2018; 28(9):3640-3650. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5302-1. View

Wang X, Chen X, Shi L, Dai J . Glioma grading and IDH1 mutational status: assessment by intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. Clin Radiol. 2019; 74(8):651.e7-651.e14. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.03.020. View

Sasaki T, Kinoshita M, Fujita K, Fukai J, Hayashi N, Uematsu Y . Radiomics and MGMT promoter methylation for prognostication of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):14435. PMC: 6783410. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50849-y. View

Hirai T, Murakami R, Nakamura H, Kitajima M, Fukuoka H, Sasao A . Prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging of high-grade astrocytomas: long-term follow-up study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008; 29(8):1505-10. PMC: 8119049. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1121. View

Gerstner E, Zhang Z, Fink J, Muzi M, Hanna L, Greco E . ACRIN 6684: Assessment of Tumor Hypoxia in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Using 18F-FMISO PET and MRI. Clin Cancer Res. 2016; 22(20):5079-5086. PMC: 5065740. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2529. View

Drabycz S, Roldan G, de Robles P, Adler D, McIntyre J, Magliocco A . An analysis of image texture, tumor location, and MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma using magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage. 2009; 49(2):1398-405. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.049. View

Sanada T, Kinoshita M, Sasaki T, Yamamoto S, Fujikawa S, Fukuyama S . Prediction of MGMT promotor methylation status in glioblastoma by contrast-enhanced T1-weighted intensity image. Neurooncol Adv. 2024; 6(1):vdae016. PMC: 10896622. DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdae016. View

Law M, Young R, Babb J, Peccerelli N, Chheang S, Gruber M . Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2008; 247(2):490-8. PMC: 3774106. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2472070898. View

Do D, Yang M, Lam L, Le N, Wu Y . Improving MGMT methylation status prediction of glioblastoma through optimizing radiomics features using genetic algorithm-based machine learning approach. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):13412. PMC: 9352871. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-17707-w. View

10.

Tang J, Ma Z, Huang G, Xu Q, Xiang Y, Li N . Downregulation of HIF-1a sensitizes U251 glioma cells to the temozolomide (TMZ) treatment. Exp Cell Res. 2016; 343(2):148-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2016.04.011. View

11.

Shen N, Zhang S, Cho J, Li S, Zhang J, Xie Y . Application of Cluster Analysis of Time Evolution for Magnetic Resonance Imaging -Derived Oxygen Extraction Fraction Mapping: A Promising Strategy for the Genetic Profile Prediction and Grading of Glioma. Front Neurosci. 2021; 15:736891. PMC: 8520989. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.736891. View

12.

White M, Zhang Y, Kazmi S, Aizenberg M, Shonka N, Yu F . Evaluating survival in subjects with astrocytic brain tumors by dynamic susceptibility-weighted perfusion MR imaging. PLoS One. 2021; 16(1):e0244275. PMC: 7787526. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244275. View

13.

Jain R, Poisson L, Narang J, Gutman D, Scarpace L, Hwang S . Genomic mapping and survival prediction in glioblastoma: molecular subclassification strengthened by hemodynamic imaging biomarkers. Radiology. 2012; 267(1):212-20. PMC: 3606543. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120846. View

14.

Juan-Albarracin J, Fuster-Garcia E, Perez-Girbes A, Aparici-Robles F, Alberich-Bayarri A, Revert-Ventura A . Glioblastoma: Vascular Habitats Detected at Preoperative Dynamic Susceptibility-weighted Contrast-enhanced Perfusion MR Imaging Predict Survival. Radiology. 2018; 287(3):944-954. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170845. View

15.

Ozturk K, Soylu E, Cayci Z . Correlation between dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI and genomic alterations in glioblastoma. Neuroradiology. 2021; 63(11):1801-1810. DOI: 10.1007/s00234-021-02674-2. View

16.

Song S, Shan Y, Wang L, Cheng Y, Yang H, Zhao G . MGMT promoter methylation status shows no effect on [F]FET uptake and CBF in gliomas: a stereotactic image-based histological validation study. Eur Radiol. 2022; 32(8):5577-5587. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08606-9. View

17.

Han Y, Yan L, Wang X, Sun Y, Zhang X, Liu Z . Structural and advanced imaging in predicting MGMT promoter methylation of primary glioblastoma: a region of interest based analysis. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18(1):215. PMC: 5822523. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4114-2. View

18.

Kanas V, Zacharaki E, Thomas G, Zinn P, Megalooikonomou V, Colen R . Learning MRI-based classification models for MGMT methylation status prediction in glioblastoma. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2017; 140:249-257. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.12.018. View

19.

Goldman J, Hagiwara A, Yao J, Raymond C, Ong C, Bakhti R . Paradoxical Association Between Relative Cerebral Blood Volume Dynamics Following Chemoradiation and Increased Progression-Free Survival in Newly Diagnosed IDH Wild-Type MGMT Promoter Methylated Glioblastoma With Measurable Disease. Front Oncol. 2022; 12:849993. PMC: 8964348. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.849993. View

20.

Persano L, Pistollato F, Rampazzo E, Della Puppa A, Abbadi S, Frasson C . BMP2 sensitizes glioblastoma stem-like cells to Temozolomide by affecting HIF-1α stability and MGMT expression. Cell Death Dis. 2012; 3:e412. PMC: 3481140. DOI: 10.1038/cddis.2012.153. View