Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging parameters of high grade gliomas in relation to the MGMT promoter methylation status: the CT, diffusion tensor imaging, and perfusion MR imaging

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

Abstract

Introduction

We hypothesized that methyl-guanine methyl transferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status, a predictor of the chemosensitivity for high grade gliomas (HGGs), may be associated with computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging variables.

Methods

Out of 38 consecutive patients with HGGs, 24 patients whose MGMT promoter methylation status was available [12 men and 12 women; median age, 49 years; age range, 22–79 years; WHO grade III (n = 7), WHO grade IV (n = 17)] were enrolled retrospectively. CT attenuation, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), fractional anisotropy (FA), and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) were measured for enhancing tumors. Qualitative imaging features were also analyzed. Mann–Whitney and Fisher’s exact tests were used to evaluate relationships between MGMT promoter methylation status and imaging variables.

Results

Maximum CT attenuation was significantly lower in the methylated MGMT promoter group than that in the unmethylated MGMT promoter group (30.3 ± 9.5 HU versus 39.2 ± 4.7 HU, respectively, p = 0.009). While ADC values tended to be higher in the methylated group than in the unmethylated group (p = 0.055), ADC ratio was significantly higher, and the FA and FA ratios were significantly lower in the methylated group than in the unmethylated group (p = 0.032, p = 0.006 and p = 0.007, respectively). In contrast, rCBV ratio did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.380).

Regarding imaging features, only ill-defined margin was seen more frequently in the methylated group than in the unmethylated group (45.5% versus 7.7%, respectively, p = 0.048).

Conclusion

Preoperative imaging can predict MGMT promoter methylation status, which is of paramount importance for predicting treatment response to chemotherapy with an alkylating agent.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJ, 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(10):987–996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Prados MD, Seiferheld W, Sandler HM, Buckner JC, Phillips T, Schultz C, Urtasun R, Davis R, Gutin P, Cascino TL, Greenberg HS, Curran WJ Jr (2004) Phase III randomized study of radiotherapy plus procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine with or without BUdR for treatment of anaplastic astrocytoma: final report of RTOG 9404. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58(4):1147–1152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Godard S, Dietrich PY, Regli L, Ostermann S, Otten P, Van Melle G, de Tribolet N, Stupp R (2004) Clinical trial substantiates the predictive value of O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation in glioblastoma patients treated with temozolomide. Clin Cancer Res 10(6):1871–1874

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wick W, Hartmann C, Engel C, Stoffels M, Felsberg J, Stockhammer F, Sabel MC, Koeppen S, Ketter R, Meyermann R, Rapp M, Meisner C, Kortmann RD, Pietsch T, Wiestler OD, Ernemann U, Bamberg M, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Weller M (2009) NOA-04 randomized phase III trial of sequential radiochemotherapy of anaplastic glioma with procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine or temozolomide. J Clin Oncol 27(35):5874–5880

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Weller M, Stupp R, Reifenberger G, Brandes AA, van den Bent MJ, Wick W, Hegi ME (2010) MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine? Nat Rev Neurol 6(1):39–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gerson SL (2004) MGMT: its role in cancer aetiology and cancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Cancer 4(4):296–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, Hamou MF, de Tribolet N, Weller M, Kros JM, Hainfellner JA, Mason W, Mariani L, Bromberg JE, 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(10):997–1003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dunn J, Baborie A, Alam F, Joyce K, Moxham M, Sibson R, Crooks D, Husband D, Shenoy A, Brodbelt A, Wong H, Liloglou T, Haylock B, Walker C (2009) Extent of MGMT promoter methylation correlates with outcome in glioblastomas given temozolomide and radiotherapy. Br J Cancer 101(1):124–131

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. van den Bent MJ, Dubbink HJ, Sanson M, van der Lee-Haarloo CR, Hegi M, Jeuken JW, Ibdaih A, Brandes AA, Taphoorn MJ, Frenay M, Lacombe D, Gorlia T, Dinjens WN, Kros JM (2009) MGMT promoter methylation is prognostic but not predictive for outcome to adjuvant PCV chemotherapy in anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors: a report from EORTC Brain Tumor Group Study 26951. J Clin Oncol 27(35):5881–5886

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Herrlinger U, Rieger J, Koch D, Loeser S, Blaschke B, Kortmann RD, Steinbach JP, Hundsberger T, Wick W, Meyermann R, Tan TC, Sommer C, Bamberg M, Reifenberger G, Weller M (2006) Phase II trial of lomustine plus temozolomide chemotherapy in addition to radiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: UKT-03. J Clin Oncol 24(27):4412–4417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Prayson RA, Agamanolis DP, Cohen ML, Estes ML, Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, Abdul-Karim F, McClure SP, Sebek BA, Vinay R (2000) Interobserver reproducibility among neuropathologists and surgical pathologists in fibrillary astrocytoma grading. J Neurol Sci 175(1):33–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Coons SW, Johnson PC, Scheithauer BW, Yates AJ, Pearl DK (1997) Improving diagnostic accuracy and interobserver concordance in the classification and grading of primary gliomas. Cancer 79(7):1381–1393

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Server A, Orheim TE, Graff BA, Josefsen R, Kumar T, Nakstad PH (2011) Diagnostic examination performance by using microvascular leakage, cerebral blood volume, and blood flow derived from 3-T dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in the differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and brain metastasis. Neuroradiology 53(5):319–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cha S (2006) Update on brain tumor imaging: from anatomy to physiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27(3):475–487

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bai X, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Han T, Liu L (2011) Grading of supratentorial astrocytic tumors by using the difference of ADC value. Neuroradiology 53(7):533–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Drabycz S, Roldan G, de Robles P, Adler D, McIntyre JB, Magliocco AM, Cairncross JG, Mitchell JR (2010) An analysis of image texture, tumor location, and MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma using magnetic resonance imaging. NeuroImage 49(2):1398–1405

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Eoli M, Menghi F, Bruzzone MG, De Simone T, Valletta L, Pollo B, Bissola L, Silvani A, Bianchessi D, D’Incerti L, Filippini G, Broggi G, Boiardi A, Finocchiaro G (2007) 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 13(9):2606–2613

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kundel HL, Polansky M (2003) Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 228(2):303–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Blanc JL, Wager M, Guilhot J, Kusy S, Bataille B, Chantereau T, Lapierre F, Larsen CJ, Karayan-Tapon L (2004) Correlation of clinical features and methylation status of MGMT gene promoter in glioblastomas. J Neurooncol 68(3):275–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim DS, Na DG, Kim KH, Kim JH, Kim E, Yun BL, Chang KH (2009) Distinguishing tumefactive demyelinating lesions from glioma or central nervous system lymphoma: added value of unenhanced CT compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 251(2):467–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. von Kummer R, Bourquain H, Bastianello S, Bozzao L, Manelfe C, Meier D, Hacke W (2001) Early prediction of irreversible brain damage after ischemic stroke at CT. Radiology 219(1):95–100

    Google Scholar 

  22. Guo AC, Cummings TJ, Dash RC, Provenzale JM (2002) Lymphomas and high-grade astrocytomas: comparison of water diffusibility and histologic characteristics. Radiology 224(1):177–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Squillaci E, Manenti G, Cova M, Di Roma M, Miano R, Palmieri G, Simonetti G (2004) Correlation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging with cellularity of renal tumours. Anticancer Res 24(6):4175–4179

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Murakami R, Hirai T, Sugahara T, Fukuoka H, Toya R, Nishimura S, Kitajima M, Okuda T, Nakamura H, Oya N, Kuratsu J, Yamashita Y (2009) Grading astrocytic tumors by using apparent diffusion coefficient parameters: superiority of a one- versus two-parameter pilot method. Radiology 251(3):838–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jellison BJ, Field AS, Medow J, Lazar M, Salamat MS, Alexander AL (2004) Diffusion tensor imaging of cerebral white matter: a pictorial review of physics, fiber tract anatomy, and tumor imaging patterns. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25(3):356–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Provenzale JM, Mukundan S, Barboriak DP (2006) Diffusion-weighted and perfusion MR imaging for brain tumor characterization and assessment of treatment response. Radiology 239(3):632–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Barrett T, Brechbiel M, Bernardo M, Choyke PL (2007) MRI of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(2):235–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Law M, Yang S, Babb JS, Knopp EA, Golfinos JG, Zagzag D, Johnson G (2004) Comparison of cerebral blood volume and vascular permeability from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with glioma grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25(5):746–755

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Emblem KE, Nedregaard B, Nome T, Due-Tonnessen P, Hald JK, Scheie D, Borota OC, Cvancarova M, Bjornerud A (2008) Glioma grading by using histogram analysis of blood volume heterogeneity from MR-derived cerebral blood volume maps. Radiology 247(3):808–817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Maia AC Jr, Malheiros SM, da Rocha AJ, Stavale JN, Guimaraes IF, Borges LR, Santos AJ, da Silva CJ, de Melo JG, Lanzoni OP, Gabbai AA, Ferraz FA (2004) Stereotactic biopsy guidance in adults with supratentorial nonenhancing gliomas: role of perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 101(6):970–976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kong DS, Kim ST, Kim EH, Lim DH, Kim WS, Suh YL, Lee JI, Park K, Kim JH, Nam DH (2011) Diagnostic dilemma of pseudoprogression in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastomas: the role of assessing relative cerebral blood flow volume and oxygen-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32(2):382–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Boxerman JL, Schmainda KM, Weisskoff RM (2006) Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27(4):859–867

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Chahal M, Xu Y, Lesniak D, Graham K, Famulski K, Christensen JG, Aghi M, Jacques A, Murray D, Sabri S, Abdulkarim B (2010) MGMT modulates glioblastoma angiogenesis and response to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib. Neuro Oncol 12(8):822–833

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by a Konkuk University Medical Center Research Grant 2011.

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, 4-12, Hwayang-dong, Gwanjin-gu, Seoul, 143-792, South Korea

    Won-Jin Moon, Jin Woo Choi & Hong Gee Roh

  2. Department of Pathology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    So Dug Lim

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Young-Cho Koh

Authors
  1. Won-Jin Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jin Woo Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hong Gee Roh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. So Dug Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Young-Cho Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Won-Jin Moon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moon, WJ., Choi, J.W., Roh, H.G. 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 54, 555–563 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-011-0947-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-011-0947-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation