Sex-specific impact of patterns of imageable tumor growth on survival of primary glioblastoma patients.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Brain Neoplasms
/ mortality
Child
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Glioblastoma
/ mortality
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Theoretical
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Sex Factors
Survival Rate
Young Adult
Biomathematical models
Glioblastoma
Neuroimaging
Sex differences
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 May 2020
19 May 2020
Historique:
received:
22
05
2019
accepted:
01
04
2020
entrez:
21
5
2020
pubmed:
21
5
2020
medline:
5
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Sex is recognized as a significant determinant of outcome among glioblastoma patients, but the relative prognostic importance of glioblastoma features has not been thoroughly explored for sex differences. Combining multi-modal MR images, biomathematical models, and patient clinical information, this investigation assesses which pretreatment variables have a sex-specific impact on the survival of glioblastoma patients (299 males and 195 females). Among males, tumor (T1Gd) radius was a predictor of overall survival (HR = 1.027, p = 0.044). Among females, higher tumor cell net invasion rate was a significant detriment to overall survival (HR = 1.011, p < 0.001). Female extreme survivors had significantly smaller tumors (T1Gd) (p = 0.010 t-test), but tumor size was not correlated with female overall survival (p = 0.955 CPH). Both male and female extreme survivors had significantly lower tumor cell net proliferation rates than other patients (M p = 0.004, F p = 0.001, t-test). Despite similar distributions of the MR imaging parameters between males and females, there was a sex-specific difference in how these parameters related to outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Sex is recognized as a significant determinant of outcome among glioblastoma patients, but the relative prognostic importance of glioblastoma features has not been thoroughly explored for sex differences.
METHODS
METHODS
Combining multi-modal MR images, biomathematical models, and patient clinical information, this investigation assesses which pretreatment variables have a sex-specific impact on the survival of glioblastoma patients (299 males and 195 females).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among males, tumor (T1Gd) radius was a predictor of overall survival (HR = 1.027, p = 0.044). Among females, higher tumor cell net invasion rate was a significant detriment to overall survival (HR = 1.011, p < 0.001). Female extreme survivors had significantly smaller tumors (T1Gd) (p = 0.010 t-test), but tumor size was not correlated with female overall survival (p = 0.955 CPH). Both male and female extreme survivors had significantly lower tumor cell net proliferation rates than other patients (M p = 0.004, F p = 0.001, t-test).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite similar distributions of the MR imaging parameters between males and females, there was a sex-specific difference in how these parameters related to outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32429869
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-06816-2
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-06816-2
pmc: PMC7238585
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
447Subventions
Organisme : James S. McDonnell Foundation
ID : 220020400
Références
Brain. 2007 Oct;130(Pt 10):2596-606
pubmed: 17785346
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016 Oct;158(10):1943-53
pubmed: 27526690
J Neurosurg. 2010 May;112(5):997-1004
pubmed: 19817542
Lancet Oncol. 2008 Jan;9(1):29-38
pubmed: 18082451
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 28;9(10):e99057
pubmed: 25350742
J Neurosurg. 2012 Nov;117(5):851-9
pubmed: 22978537
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;19(6):833-844
pubmed: 27932423
Oncotarget. 2016 Aug 23;7(34):55169-55180
pubmed: 27409829
J Neurosurg. 2016 Apr;124(4):998-1007
pubmed: 26452121
Neuro Oncol. 2014 Jun;16(6):779-86
pubmed: 24832620
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 12;8(11):e79115
pubmed: 24265748
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Sep;50(13):2309-18
pubmed: 24972545
Neuro Oncol. 2018 Mar 27;20(4):576-577
pubmed: 29474647
Radiat Oncol. 2014 Apr 23;9:95
pubmed: 24758192
Cancer Res. 2011 Dec 15;71(24):7366-75
pubmed: 21900399
J Neurooncol. 2007 May;83(1):91-3
pubmed: 17164975
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013 Mar;34(3):533-40
pubmed: 22997168
Cancer Res. 2013 May 15;73(10):2976-86
pubmed: 23400596
Radiol Oncol. 2016 Nov 10;50(4):394-401
pubmed: 27904447
Sci Transl Med. 2019 Jan 2;11(473):
pubmed: 30602536
J Neurooncol. 2018 Feb;136(3):565-576
pubmed: 29159777
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Mar;51(4):533-42
pubmed: 25661102
Genome Res. 2009 Sep;19(9):1639-45
pubmed: 19541911
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 20;370(8):699-708
pubmed: 24552317
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e51951
pubmed: 23372647
Neuro Oncol. 2014 Sep;16(9):1159-60
pubmed: 25096192
J Neurosurg. 2004 Aug;101(2):219-26
pubmed: 15309911
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 1;29(34):4482-90
pubmed: 22025148
BMC Cancer. 2011 Jul 29;11:325
pubmed: 21801393
Cancer. 2013 Oct 1;119(19):3489-95
pubmed: 23868553
Br J Cancer. 2008 Jan 15;98(1):113-9
pubmed: 18059395
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Jun 21;55(12):3271-85
pubmed: 20484781
Neuro Oncol. 2013 Nov;15 Suppl 2:ii1-56
pubmed: 24137015
World Neurosurg. 2018 Apr;112:e342-e347
pubmed: 29337169
Cancer Res. 2009 Dec 1;69(23):9133-40
pubmed: 19934335
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):987-96
pubmed: 15758009
Neuro Oncol. 2010 Feb;12(2):116-21
pubmed: 20150378