Prognostic Significance of Contrast Enhancement in Newly Diagnosed Grade 2 IDH-mutant Glioma

Clicks: 15
ID: 332533
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #236 of 286 articles by views in journal of neuro-oncology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 286 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Contrast enhancement is generally considered an adverse prognostic feature in adult glioma. However, its significance in newly diagnosed grade 2 IDH-mutant glioma remains uncertain, with important implications for use of the mutant IDH inhibitor vorasidenib. We evaluated survival outcomes associated with preoperative enhancement in this population. Methods We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients with grade 2 IDH-mutant glioma treated at two institutions between 2010 and 2021. Preoperative MRIs were assessed for intratumoral enhancement by two independent readers with third-reader adjudication. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis, univariate and multivariable Cox regression. Results Among 325 evaluable patients, median age was 37 years, 47% had 1p/19q-codeletion, and 35% had gross-total resection. Median follow-up was 10.5 years. Preoperative enhancement was observed in 53 (16%) patients, most commonly nonmeasurable (72%) or ill-defined (62%); most (87%) had no residual postoperative enhancement. Preoperative enhancement was not associated with OS or PFS in either univariate analyses (OS HR 1.16 [0.67–2.01], p = 0.591; PFS HR 1.25 [0.88–1.80], p = 0.216) or multivariable analyses adjusting for established prognostic factors (OS HR 0.86 [0.46–1.61], p = 0.633; PFS HR 1.29 [0.86–1.92], p = 0.219). Enhancement characteristics (measurable size, well-defined morphology) were not associated with OS. Conclusion In grade 2 IDH-mutant glioma, preoperative enhancement was not associated with OS or PFS. These findings suggest that preoperative enhancement does not identify a higher-risk subgroup in this population, and that its presence alone should not preclude consideration of vorasidenib in eligible patients.
Reference Key
openalex_W7222438596 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Vihang Nakhate, Aleksandra B Lasica, Loai J. A. Aker, Julie J. Miller, Ian Pan, Jason Lauer, Julien Rousseau, Elisa Aquilanti, Isabel Arrillaga‐Romany, Tamar R. Berger, Tracy T. Batchelor, Rameen Beroukhim, Ugonma Nnenna Chukwueke, Jörg Dietrich, Deborah Anne Forst, Elizabeth Robins Gerstner, L Nicolas Gonzalez Castro, Eudocia Q. Lee, Lakshmi Nayak, Scott Randall Plotkin, John Yohan Rhee, Nancy Wang, David A. Reardon, Raymond Y. Huang, Gilbert Youssef, Patrick Yung Wen
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal journal of neuro-oncology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/neuonc/noag262
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noag262
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.