4.5 Article

Postoperative oscillatory brain activity as an add-on prognostic marker in diffuse glioma

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 147, 期 1, 页码 49-58

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-019-03386-7

关键词

Glioma; Progression-free survival; Overall survival; Magnetoencephalography (MEG); Beamforming

资金

  1. Dutch Epilepsy Foundation (NEF) [08-08, 09-09]
  2. Dutch MS Research Foundation [09-358d]
  3. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO-ZonMW Veni Grant) [016.146.086]
  4. Society in Science (Branco Weiss Fellowship)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Progression-free survival (PFS) in glioma patients varies widely, even when stratifying for known predictors (i.e. age, molecular tumor subtype, presence of epilepsy, tumor grade and Karnofsky performance status). Neuronal activity has been shown to accelerate tumor growth in an animal model, suggesting that brain activity may be valuable as a PFS predictor. We investigated whether postoperative oscillatory brain activity, assessed by resting-state magnetoencephalography is of additional value when predicting PFS in glioma patients. Methods We included 27 patients with grade II-IV gliomas. Each patient's oscillatory brain activity was estimated by calculating broadband power (0.5-48 Hz) in 56 epochs of 3.27 s and averaged over 78 cortical regions of the Automated Anatomical Labeling atlas. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to test the predictive value of broadband power towards PFS, adjusting for known predictors by backward elimination. Results Higher broadband power predicted shorter PFS after adjusting for known prognostic factors (n = 27; HR 2.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-5.70); p = 0.022). Post-hoc univariate analysis showed that higher broadband power also predicted shorter overall survival (OS; n = 38; HR 1.88 (95% CI 1.00-3.54); p = 0.038). Conclusions Our findings suggest that postoperative broadband power is of additional value in predicting PFS beyond already known predictors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据