Magnetic resonance perfusion image features uncover an angiogenic subgroup of glioblastoma patients with poor survival and better response to antiangiogenic treatment

Neuro-Oncology

Volumn 19, Issue 7, 2017, Pages 997-1007

  Liu, Tiffany T ^a,b   Achrol, Achal S ^a   Mitchell, Lex A ^b   Rodriguez, Scott A ^a   Feroze, Abdullah ^a   Iv, Michael ^b   Kim, Christine ^b   Chaudhary, Navjot ^a   Gevaert, Olivier ^b   Stuart, Josh M ^b,c   Harsh, Griffith R ^a   Chang, Steven D ^a   Rubin, Daniel L ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c University of California Santa Cruz   (United States)

Author keywords

angiogenesis; antiangiogenic therapy; patient stratification; quantitative perfusion weighted imaging; radiogenomic analysis

Indexed keywords

ANGIOGENESIS INHIBITOR; BEVACIZUMAB;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SURVIVAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESPONSE; FEMALE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PERFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL PREDICTION; SURVIVAL TIME; BRAIN TUMOR; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPLICATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GENOTYPE; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOVASCULARIZATION (PATHOLOGY); TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANGIOGENESIS INHIBITORS; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOVASCULARIZATION, PATHOLOGIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85021824507     PISSN: 15228517     EISSN: 15235866     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/now270     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Omuro A, DeAngelis LM. Glioblastoma and other malignant gliomas: a clinical review. JAMA. 2013;310(17):1842-1850.
2. Thomas AA, Brennan CW, DeAngelis LM, Omuro AM. Emerging therapies for glioblastoma. JAMA Neurol. 2014;71(11):1437-1444.
3. Yadav M, Jhunjhunwala S, Phung QT, et al. Predicting immunogenic tumour mutations by combining mass spectrometry and exome sequencing. Nature. 2014;515(7528):572-576.
4. Zhang X, Pagel MD, Baker AF, Gillies RJ. Reproducibility of magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e89797.
5. Kreisl TN, Kim L, Moore K, et al. Phase II trial of single-agent bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab plus irinotecan at tumor progression in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(5):740-745.
6. Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY, et al. Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4733-4740.
7. Gilbert MR, Dignam JJ, Armstrong TS, et al. A randomized trial of bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(8):699-708.
8. Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W, et al. Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(8):709-722.
9. Brennan CW, Verhaak RG, McKenna A, et al.; TCGA Research Network. The somatic genomic landscape of glioblastoma. Cell. 2013;155(2):462-477.
10. Verhaak RG, Hoadley KA, Purdom E, et al.; Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010;17(1):98-110.
11. Gevaert O, Mitchell LA, Achrol AS, et al. Glioblastoma multiforme: exploratory radiogenomic analysis by using quantitative image features. Radiology. 2014;273(1):168-174.
12. Itakura H, Achrol AS, Mitchell LA, et al. Magnetic resonance image features identify glioblastoma phenotypic subtypes with distinct molecular pathway activities. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(303):303ra138.
13. Liu TT, Achrol AS, Mitchell LA, et al. Computational identification of tumor anatomic location associated with survival in 2 large cohorts of human primary glioblastomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(4):621-628.
14. Barajas RF Jr, Cha S. Benefits of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI for glioma diagnosis and therapy. CNS Oncol. 2014;3(6):407-419.
15. Hakyemez B, Erdogan C, Bolca N, Yildirim N, Gokalp G, Parlak M. Evaluation of different cerebral mass lesions by perfusion-weighted MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(4):817-824.
16. Hu LS, Eschbacher JM, Heiserman JE, et al. Reevaluating the imaging definition of tumor progression: perfusion MRI quantifies recurrent glioblastoma tumor fraction, pseudoprogression, and radiation necrosis to predict survival. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(7):919-930.
17. Barajas RF Jr, Phillips JJ, Parvataneni R, et al. Regional variation in histopathologic features of tumor specimens from treatment-naive glioblastoma correlates with anatomic and physiologic MR Imaging. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(7):942-954.
18. Lu-Emerson C, Duda DG, Emblem KE, et al. Lessons from anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor trials in patients with glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1197-1213.
19. Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K, et al. The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(6):1045-1057.
20. Jain R, Poisson L, Narang J, et al. Genomic mapping and survival prediction in glioblastoma: molecular subclassification strengthened by hemodynamic imaging biomarkers. Radiology. 2013;267(1):212-220.
21. Bolstad BM, Irizarry RA, Astrand M, Speed TP. A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics. 2003;19(2):185-193.
22. Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G, et al. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice Insights Imaging. 2012;3(6):573-589.
23. Monti S, Tamayo P, Mesirov J, Golub T. Consensus clustering: a resampling-based method for class discovery and visualization of gene expression microarray data. Mach Learn. 2003;52(1-2):91-118.
24. Maaten Lvd, Hinton G. Visualizing data using t-SNE. J Mach Learn Res. 2008;9:2579-2605.
25. Liaw A, Wiener M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News. 2002;2(3):18-22.
26. Kuhn M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J Stat Software. 2008;28(5):1-26.
27. Rousseeuw PJ. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math. 1987;20:53-65.
28. Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(43):15545-15550.
29. Weller M, Yung WK. Angiogenesis inhibition for glioblastoma at the edge: beyond AVAGlio and RTOG 0825. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15(8):971.
30. Patel AP, Tirosh I, Trombetta JJ, et al. Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma. Science. 2014;344(6190):1396-1401.
31. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(10):883-892.