Semi-Automatic MRI Muscle Volumetry to Diagnose and Monitor Hereditary and Acquired Polyneuropathies

With emerging treatment approaches, it is crucial to correctly diagnose and monitor hereditary and acquired polyneuropathies. This study aimed to assess the validity and accuracy of magnet resonance imaging (MRI)-based muscle volumetry.Using semi-automatic segmentations of upper- and lower leg muscles based on whole-body MRI and axial T1-weighted turbo spin-echo sequences, we compared and correlated muscle volumes, and clinical and neurophysiological parameters in demyelinating Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) (n = 13), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) (n = 27), and other neuropathy (n = 17) patients.The muscle volumes of lower legs correlated with foot dorsiflexion strength (p < 0.0001), CMT Neuropathy Score 2 (p < 0.0001), early gait disorders (p = 0.0486), and in CIDP patients with tibial nerve conduction velocities (p = 0.0092). Lower (p = 0.0218) and upper (p = 0.0342) leg muscles were significantly larger in CIDP compared to CMT patients. At one-year follow-up (n = 15), leg muscle volumes showed no significant decrease.MRI muscle volumetry is a promising method to differentiate and characterize neuropathies in clinical practice

Tumor growth patterns of MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma in the randomized GLARIUS trial

We evaluated patterns of tumor growth in patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma who were assigned to undergo radiotherapy in conjunction with bevacizumab/irinotecan (BEV/IRI) or standard temozolomide (TMZ) within the randomized phase II GLARIUS trial. In 142 patients (94 BEV/IRI, 48 TMZ), we reviewed magnetic resonance imaging scans at baseline and first tumor recurrence. Based on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images, we assessed tumor growth patterns and tumor invasiveness. Tumor growth patterns were classified as either multifocal or local at baseline and recurrence; at first recurrence, we additionally assessed whether distant lesions appeared. Invasiveness was determined as either diffuse or non-diffuse. Associations with treatment arms were calculated using Fisher's exact test. At baseline, 115 of 142 evaluable patients (81%) had a locally confined tumor. Between treatment arms, there was no significant difference in the fraction of tumors that changed from an initially local tumor growth pattern to a multifocal pattern (12 and 13%, p = 0.55). Distant lesions appeared in 17% (BEV/IRI) and 13% (TMZ) of patients (p = 0.69). 15% of patients in the BEV/IRI arm and 8% in the TMZ arm developed a diffuse growth pattern from an initially non-diffuse pattern (p = 0.42). The tumor growth and invasiveness patterns do not differ between BEV/IRI and TMZ-treated MGMT-non-methylated glioblastoma patients in the GLARIUS trial. BEV/IRI was not associated with an increased rate of multifocal, distant, or highly invasive tumors at the time of recurrence

Lomustine-temozolomide combination therapy versus standard temozolomide therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (CeTeG/NOA–09): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BackgroundThere is an urgent need for more effective therapies for glioblastoma. Data from a previous unrandomised phase 2 trial suggested that lomustine-temozolomide plus radiotherapy might be superior to temozolomide chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylation of the MGMT promoter. In the CeTeG/NOA-09 trial, we aimed to further investigate the effect of lomustine-temozolomide therapy in the setting of a randomised phase 3 trial.MethodsIn this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients from 17 German university hospitals who were aged 18–70 years, with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter, and a Karnofsky Performance Score of 70% and higher. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a predefined SAS-generated randomisation list to standard temozolomide chemoradiotherapy (75 mg/m2 per day concomitant to radiotherapy [59–60 Gy] followed by six courses of temozolomide 150–200 mg/m2 per day on the first 5 days of the 4-week course) or to up to six courses of lomustine (100 mg/m2 on day 1) plus temozolomide (100–200 mg/m2 per day on days 2–6 of the 6-week course) in addition to radiotherapy (59–60 Gy). Because of the different schedules, patients and physicians were not masked to treatment groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the modified intention-to-treat population, comprising all randomly assigned patients who started their allocated chemotherapy. The prespecified test for overall survival differences was a log-rank test stratified for centre and recursive partitioning analysis class. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01149109.FindingsBetween June 17, 2011, and April 8, 2014, 141 patients were randomly assigned to the treatment groups; 129 patients (63 in the temozolomide and 66 in the lomustine-temozolomide group) constituted the modified intention-to-treat population. Median overall survival was improved from 31·4 months (95% CI 27·7–47·1) with temozolomide to 48·1 months (32·6 months–not assessable) with lomustine-temozolomide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·35–1·03; p=0·0492 for log-rank analysis). A significant overall survival difference between groups was also found in a secondary analysis of the intention-to-treat population (n=141, HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·35–1·03; p=0·0432 for log-rank analysis). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were observed in 32 (51%) of 63 patients in the temozolomide group and 39 (59%) of 66 patients in the lomustine-temozolomide group. There were no treatment-related deaths.InterpretationOur results suggest that lomustine-temozolomide chemotherapy might improve survival compared with temozolomide standard therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter. The findings should be interpreted with caution, owing to the small size of the trial