Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Glioblastoma radiomics: can genomic and molecular characteristics correlate with imaging response patterns?

  • Functional Neuroradiology
  • Published:
Neuroradiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

For glioblastoma (GBM), imaging response (IR) or pseudoprogression (PSP) is frequently observed after chemoradiation and may connote a favorable prognosis. With tumors categorized by the Cancer Genome Atlas Project (mesenchymal, classical, neural, and proneural) and by methylguanine-methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation status, we attempted to determine if certain genomic or molecular subtypes of GBM were specifically associated with IR or PSP.

Methods

Patients with GBM treated at two institutions were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Mantel-cox test determined effect of IR and PSP on OS and PFS. Fisher’s exact test was utilized to correlate IR and PSP with genomic subtypes and MGMT status.

Results

Eighty-two patients with GBM were reviewed. The median OS and PFS were 17.9 months and 8.9 months. IR was observed in 28 (40%) and was associated with improved OS (median 29.4 vs 14.5 months p < 0.01) and PFS (median 17.7 vs 5.5 months, p < 0.01). PSP was observed in 14 (19.2%) and trended towards improved PFS (15.0 vs 7.7 months p = 0.08). Tumors with a proneural component had a higher rate of IR compared to those without a proneural component (IR 60% vs 28%; p = 0.03). MGMT methylation was associated with IR (58% vs 24%, p = 0.032), but not PSP (34%, p = 0.10).

Conclusion

IR is associated with improved OS and PFS. The proneural subtype and MGMT methylated tumors had higher rates of IR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dolecek TA, Propp JM, Stroup NE (2012) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2005–2009. Neuro Oncol 14(Suppl 5):v1–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nos218

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJB, Belanger K, Brandes AA, Marosi C, Bogdahn U, Curschmann J, Janzer RC, Ludwin SK, Gorlia T, Allgeier A, Lacombe D, Cairncross JG, Eisenhauer E, Mirimanoff RO (2005) Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352:987–996

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner AA, Kesari S, Steinberg DM, Toms SA, Taylor LP, Lieberman F, Silvani A, Fink KL, Barnett GH, Zhu JJ, Henson JW, Engelhard HH, Chen TC, Tran DD, Sroubek J, Tran ND, Hottinger AF, Landolfi J, Desai R, Caroli M, Kew Y, Honnorat J, Idbaih A, Kirson ED, Weinberg U, Palti Y, Hegi ME, Ram Z (2015) Maintenance therapy with tumor-treating fields plus temozolomide vs temozolomide alone for glioblastoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:2535–2543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Curran WJ Jr, Scott CB, Horton J et al (1993) Recursive partitioning analysis of prognostic factors in three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group malignant glioma trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:704–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hegi ME, Diserens A-C, Gorlia T, Hamou MF, de Tribolet N, Weller M, Kros JM, Hainfellner JA, Mason W, Mariani L, Bromberg JEC, Hau P, Mirimanoff RO, Cairncross JG, Janzer RC, Stupp R (2005) MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352:997–1003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yan H, Parsons DW, Jin G, McLendon R, Rasheed BA, Yuan W, Kos I, Batinic-Haberle I, Jones S, Riggins GJ, Friedman H, Friedman A, Reardon D, Herndon J, Kinzler KW, Velculescu VE, Vogelstein B, Bigner DD (2009) IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. N Engl J Med 360:765–773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang J, Yu H, Qian X, Liu K, Tan H, Yang T, Wang M, Li KC, Chan MD, Debinski W, Paulsson A, Wang G, Zhou X (2016) Pseudo progression identification of glioblastoma with dictionary learning. Comput Biol Med 73:94–101

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gutman DA, Cooper LAD, Hwang SN, Holder CA, Gao JJ, Aurora TD, Dunn WD Jr, Scarpace L, Mikkelsen T, Jain R, Wintermark M, Jilwan M, Raghavan P, Huang E, Clifford RJ, Mongkolwat P, Kleper V, Freymann J, Kirby J, Zinn PO, Moreno CS, Jaffe C, Colen R, Rubin DL, Saltz J, Flanders A, Brat DJ (2013) MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the TCGA glioblastoma data set. Radiology 267:560–569

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Barker FG 2nd, Prados MD, Chang SM et al (1996) Radiation response and survival time in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. J Neurosurg 84:442–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brandes AA, Tosoni A, Spagnolli F, Frezza G, Leonardi M, Calbucci F, Franceschi E (2008) Disease progression or pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment: pitfalls in neurooncology. Neuro-Oncology 10:361–367

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Shah N, Feng X, Lankerovich M, et al (2016) Data from Ivy GAP. https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2016.XLWAN6NL

  12. Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K, Freymann J, Kirby J, Koppel P, Moore S, Phillips S, Maffitt D, Pringle M, Tarbox L, Prior F (2013) The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging 26:1045–1057

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen AG, Galanis E, DeGroot J, Wick W, Gilbert MR, Lassman AB, Tsien C, Mikkelsen T, Wong ET, Chamberlain MC, Stupp R, Lamborn KR, Vogelbaum MA, van den Bent MJ, Chang SM (2010) Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 28:1963–1972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Holmes JA, Paulsson A, Peiffer AM et al (2014) Genomic predictors of infield and marginal failure for glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide: a step towards personalized radiation fields? Radiat Oncol 90:S291–S292

    Google Scholar 

  15. Holmes JA, Paulsson AK, Page BR, Miller LD, Liu W, Xu J, Hinson WH, Lesser GJ, Laxton AW, Tatter SB, Debinski W, Chan MD (2015) Genomic predictors of patterns of progression in glioblastoma and possible influences on radiation field design. J Neuro-Oncol 124:447–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Verhaak RGW, Hoadley KA, Purdom E, Wang V, Qi Y, Wilkerson MD, Miller CR, Ding L, Golub T, Mesirov JP, Alexe G, Lawrence M, O'Kelly M, Tamayo P, Weir BA, Gabriel S, Winckler W, Gupta S, Jakkula L, Feiler HS, Hodgson JG, James CD, Sarkaria JN, Brennan C, Kahn A, Spellman PT, Wilson RK, Speed TP, Gray JW, Meyerson M, Getz G, Perou CM, Hayes DN (2010) Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell 17:98–110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. The Allen Brain Institute Ivy Glioblastoma Atlas Project. http://help.brain-map.org/display/glioblastoma/Documentation

  18. Bady P, Sciuscio D, Diserens A-C, Bloch J, van den Bent MJ, Marosi C, Dietrich PY, Weller M, Mariani L, Heppner FL, Mcdonald DR, Lacombe D, Stupp R, Delorenzi M, Hegi ME (2012) MGMT methylation analysis of glioblastoma on the Infinium methylation BeadChip identifies two distinct CpG regions associated with gene silencing and outcome, yielding a prediction model for comparisons across datasets, tumor grades, and CIMP-status. Acta Neuropathol 124:547–560

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Noushmehr H, Weisenberger DJ, Diefes K et al (2010) Identification of a CpG island methylator phenotype that defines a distinct subgroup of glioma. Cancer Cell 17:510–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kruser TJ, Mehta MP, Robins HI (2013) Pseudoprogression after glioma therapy: a comprehensive review. Expert Rev Neurother 13:389–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hein PA, Eskey CJ, Dunn JF et al (2004) Diffusion-weighted imaging in the follow-up of treated high-grade gliomas: tumor recurrence versus radiation injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25:201–209

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Geer CP, Simonds J, Anvery A, Chen MY, Burdette JH, Zapadka ME, Ellis TL, Tatter SB, Lesser GJ, Chan MD, McMullen KP, Johnson AJ (2012) Does MR perfusion imaging impact management decisions for patients with brain tumors? A prospective study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:556–562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Tsuyuguchi N, Takami T, Sunada I, Iwai Y, Yamanaka K, Tanaka K, Nishikawa M, Ohata K, Torii K, Morino M, Nishio A, Hara M (2004) Methionine positron emission tomography for differentiation of recurrent brain tumor and radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery —in malignant glioma—. Ann Nucl Med 18:291–296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Qian X, Tan H, Zhang J, et al (2016) Identification of biomarkers for pseudo and true progression of GBM based on radiogenomics study. Oncotarget 7(34):55377–55394. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10553

  25. Proposed Decision Memo for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) for Medicare Beneficiaries with Advanced Cancer (CAG-00450N). https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-proposed-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=290&bc=AAAAAAAAAAQAAA%3D%3D

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Michael H. Soike, Emory R. McTyre, Christina K. Cramer, William H. Hinson & Michael D. Chan

  2. The Ben and Catherine Ivy Center for Advanced Brain Tumor Treatment, Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA

    Nameeta Shah & Ralph B. Puchalski

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA

    Jordan A. Holmes

  4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA

    Anna K. Paulsson

  5. Department of Cancer Biology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Lance D. Miller, Hui-Wen Lo & Waldemar Debinski

  6. Brain Tumor Center of Excellence, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Christina K. Cramer, Glenn J. Lesser, Roy E. Strowd, Hui-Wen Lo, Adrian W. Laxton, Stephen B. Tatter, Waldemar Debinski & Michael D. Chan

  7. Department of Hematology & Oncology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Glenn J. Lesser

  8. Department of Neurology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Roy E. Strowd

  9. Department of Pathology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Ryan T. Mott

  10. Department of Radiology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Annette J. Johnson

  11. Department of Neurosurgery, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Adrian W. Laxton & Stephen B. Tatter

Authors
  1. Michael H. Soike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emory R. McTyre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nameeta Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ralph B. Puchalski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jordan A. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anna K. Paulsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lance D. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christina K. Cramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Glenn J. Lesser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Roy E. Strowd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. William H. Hinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ryan T. Mott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Annette J. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Hui-Wen Lo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Adrian W. Laxton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Stephen B. Tatter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Waldemar Debinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Michael D. Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael H. Soike.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded in part by the Ben and Catherine Ivy Foundation (RP, GF: patient data collected from the Swedish Neuroscience Institute). The content is solely the responsibility of the respective authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Ben and Catherine Ivy Foundation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

For this type of retrospective study formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soike, M.H., McTyre, E.R., Shah, N. et al. Glioblastoma radiomics: can genomic and molecular characteristics correlate with imaging response patterns?. Neuroradiology 60, 1043–1051 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-018-2060-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-018-2060-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation