Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: Added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 448-454

  Choi, Young Jun ^a   Kim, Ho Sung ^a   Jahng, Geon Ho ^b   Kim, Sang Joon ^a   Suh, Dae Chul ^a  

^a University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Kyung Hee University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Brain; MRI; Perfusion; Recurrence; Tumor

Indexed keywords

BLOOD VESSELS; BRAIN; GRAPHIC METHODS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; TUMORS;

ARTERIAL SPIN LABELING; CONCURRENT CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; DYNAMIC SUSCEPTIBILITY CONTRAST; INDEPENDENT PREDICTORS; NEWLY DIAGNOSED GLIOBLASTOMA; PERFUSION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECURRENCE;

PATIENT TREATMENT;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; SPIN LABELING;

ADULT; AGED; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CANCER GRADING; DIAGNOSTIC USE; DISEASE COURSE; FEMALE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPIN LABELING;

ADULT; AGED; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; CONTRAST MEDIA; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; GADOLINIUM DTPA; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPIN LABELS;

EID: 84880670903     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0284185112474916     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, et al. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:453-61
2. Taal W, Brandsma D, de Bruin HG, et al. Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer 2008;113:405-10
3. Chamberlain MC, Glantz MJ, Chalmers L, et al. Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2007;82:81-3
4. Hustinx R, Pourdehnad M, Kaschten B, et al. PET imaging for differentiating recurrent brain tumor from radiation necrosis. Radiol Clin North Am 2005;43:35-47
5. Henry RG, Vigneron DB, Fischbein NJ, et al. Comparison of relative cerebral blood volume and proton spectroscopy in patients with treated gliomas. Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:357-66
6. Biousse V, Newman NJ, Hunter SB, et al. Diffusion weighted imaging in radiation necrosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:382-84
7. Sundgren PC, Fan X, Weybright P, et al. Differentiation of recurrent brain tumor versus radiation injury using diffusion tensor imaging in patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:1131-42
8. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963-72
9. Kim HS, Kim SY. A prospective study on the added value of pulsed arterial spin-labeling and apparent diffusion coefficients in the grading of gliomas. Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1693-9
10. Aronen HJ, Perkio J. Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI of gliomas. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2002;12:501-23
11. Kim MJ, Kim HS, Kim JH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability of pulsed arterial spin labeling for glioma grading. Acta Radiol 2008;49:450-7
12. Knopp EA, Cha S, Johnson G, et al. Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 1999; 211:791-8
13. Cha S, Knopp EA, Johnson G, et al. Intracranial mass lesions: Dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2002;223:11-29
14. Adamson C, Kanu OO, Mehta AI, et al. Glioblastoma multiforme: a review of where we have been and where we are going. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2009;18:1061-83
15. Burger PC. Malignant astrocytic neoplasms: classification, pathologic anatomy, and response to treatment. Semin Oncol 1986;13:16-26
16. Barajas RF Jr, Chang JS, Segal MR, et al. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrastenhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009;253:486-96
17. Kim HS, Kim JH, Kim SH, et al. Posttreatment high-grade glioma: usefulness of peak height position with semiquantitative MR perfusion histogram analysis in an entire contrast-enhanced lesion for predicting volume fraction of recurrence. Radiology 2010;256:906-15
18. Bisdas S, Naegele T, Ritz R, et al. Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acad Radiol 2011;18:575-83
19. Al Sayyari A, Buckley R, McHenery C, et al. Distinguishing recurrent primary brain tumor from radiation injury: a preliminary study using a susceptibility-weighted MR imaging-guided apparent diffusion coefficient analysis strategy. Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1049-54
20. Ozsunar Y, Mullins ME, Kwong K, et al. Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis? A pilot comparison of arterial spin-labeled, dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced MRI, and FDG-PET imaging. Acad Radiol 2010;17:282-90
21. Deibler AR, Pollock JM, Kraft RA, et al. Arterial spin-labeling in routine clinical practice, part 1: technique and artifacts. Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1228-34
22. Detre JA, Zhang W, Roberts DA, et al. Tissue specific perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling. NMR Biomed 1994;7:75-82
23. Edelman RR, Chen Q. EPISTAR MRI: multislice mapping of cerebral blood flow. Magn Reson Med 1998;40:800-5
24. Golay X, Petersen ET, Hui F. Pulsed star labeling of arterial regions (PULSAR): a robust regional perfusion technique for high field imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:15-21
25. Wang Z, Aguirre GK, Rao H, et al. Empirical optimization of ASL data analysis using an ASL data processing toolbox: ASLtbx. Magn Reson Imaging 2008;26:261-9
26. Emblem KE, Nedregaard B, Nome T, et al. Glioma grading by using histogram analysis of blood volume heterogeneity from MR-derived cerebral blood volume maps. Radiology 2008;247:808-17
27. Law M, Young R, Babb J, et al. Histogram analysis versus region of interest analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging data in the grading of cerebral gliomas. Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:761-6
28. Warmuth C, Gunther M, Zimmer C. Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;228:523-32
29. Oh BC, Pagnini PG, Wang MY, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery: adjacent tissue injury and response after high-dose single fraction radiation: Part I-Histology, imaging, and molecular events. Neurosurgery 2007;60:31-44; discussion 44-35
30. Wesseling P, Ruiter DJ, Burger PC. Angiogenesis in brain tumors; pathobiological and clinical aspects. J Neurooncol 1997;32:253-65
31. Nelson SJ, Cha S. Imaging glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer J 2003;9:134-45
32. Belden CJ, Valdes PA, Ran C, et al. Genetics of Glioblastoma: AWindow into Its Imaging and Histopathologic Variability. Radiographics 2011;31:1717-40
33. Norden AD, Young GS, Setayesh K, et al. Bevacizumab for recurrent malignant gliomas: efficacy, toxicity, and patterns of recurrence. Neurology 2008;70:779-87
34. Hopewell JW, Calvo W, Jaenke R, et al. Microvasculature and radiation damage. Recent Results Cancer Res 1993;130:1-16
35. Valk PE, Dillon WP. Radiation injury of the brain. Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:45-62
36. Fuss M, Wenz F, Scholdei R, et al. Radiation-induced regional cerebral blood volume (rCBV) changes in normal brain and low-grade astrocytomas: quantification and time and dose-dependent occurrence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:53-8
37. Bagley LJ, Grossman RI, Judy KD, et al. Gliomas: correlation of magnetic susceptibility artifact with histologic grade. Radiology 1997;202:511-6