Evaluation of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma multiforme using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxytol calls RANO criteria into question

Neuro-Oncology

Volumn 16, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1146-1154

  Nasseri, Morad ^a,e   Gahramanov, Seymur ^a,d   Netto, Joao Prola ^a   Fu, Rongwei ^a,b   Muldoon, Leslie L ^a   Varallyay, Csanad ^a   Hamilton, Bronwyn E ^b   Neuwelt, Edward A ^a,b,c  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ferumoxytol; GBM; Perfusion MRI; Pseudoprogression; RANO criteria

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; FERUMOXYTOL; GADOLINIUM; MAGNETITE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN BLOOD VOLUME; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PSEUDOPROGRESSION; RESPONSE ASSESSMENT IN NEURO ONCOLOGY CRITERIA; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURVIVAL RATE; SUSCEPTIBILITY WEIGHTED IMAGING; AGED; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; DISEASE COURSE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FERROSOFERRIC OXIDE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84903988269     PISSN: 15228517     EISSN: 15235866     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/not328     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Dolecek TA, Propp JM, Stroup NE, et al. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2005-2009. Neuro-Oncology. 2012;14(Suppl 5): V1-v49
2. Stupp R, Mason WP, van Den Bent MJ, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):987-996 (Pubitemid 40349501)
3. 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. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(6):1049-1054
4. 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(2): 405-410
5. Chamberlain MC, Glantz MJ, Chalmers L, et al. Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2007;82(1):81-83
6. Chaskis C, Neyns B, Michotte A, et al. Pseudoprogression after radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide for high-grade glioma: Clinical observations and working recommendations. Surg Neurol. 2009;72(4):423-428
7. Clarke JL, Chang S. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: Challenges in brain tumor imaging. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2009; 9(3):241-246
8. de Wit MCY, de Bruin HG, Eijkenboom W, et al. Immediate post-radiotherapy changes in malignant glioma can mimic tumor progression. Neurology. 2004;63(3):535-537 (Pubitemid 39031388)
9. Gerstner ER, McNamara MB, Norden AD, et al. Effect of adding temozolomide to radiation therapy on the incidence of pseudo-progression. J Neurooncol. 2009;94(1):97-101
10. Gunjur A, Lau E, Taouk Y, et al. Early post-Treatment pseudoprogression amongst glioblastoma multiforme patients treated with radiotherapy and temozolomide: A retrospective analysis. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2011;55(6):603-610
11. Hu LS, Eschbacher JM, Heiserman JE, et al. Reevaluating the imaging definition of tumor progression: Perfusion MRI quantifies recurrent glioblastoma tumor fraction, pseudoprogression, and radiation necrosis to predict survival. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(7):919-930
12. Kang HC, Kim CY, Han JH, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with malignant gliomas treated with concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy: Potential role of p53. J Neurooncol. 2011;102(1): 157-162
13. Roldan GB, Scott JN, McIntyre JB, et al. Population-based study of pseudoprogression after chemoradiotherapy in GBM. Can J Neurol Sci. 2009;36(5):617-622
14. Sanghera P, Perry J, Sahgal A, et al. Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme. Can J Neurol Sci. 2010;37(1):36-42
15. Young RJ, Gupta A, Shah AD, et al. Potential utility of conventional MRI signs in Diagnosing pseudoprogression in glioblastoma. Neurology. 2011;76(22):1918-1924
16. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr., et al. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8(7):1277-1280 (Pubitemid 20195640)
17. 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(11): 1963-1972
18. Brandes AA, Tosoni A, Spagnolli F, et al. Disease progression or pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment: Pitfalls in neurooncology. Neuro Oncol. 2008;10(3): 361-367
19. Hein PA, Eskey CJ, Dunn JF, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the follow-up of treated high-grade gliomas: Tumor recurrence versus radiation injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(2):201-209 (Pubitemid 38235296)
20. Asao C, Korogi Y, Kitajima M, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of radiation-induced brain injury for differentiation from tumor recurrence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(6):1455-1460 (Pubitemid 43733446)
21. Hu LS, Baxter LC, Smith KA, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: Direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(3):552-558
22. Gahramanov S, Raslan AM, Muldoon LL, et al. Potential for differentiation of pseudoprogression from true tumor progression with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using ferumoxytol vs. gadoteridol: A pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(2):514-523
23. Hu X, Wong KK, Young GS, et al. Support vector machine multiparametric MRI identification of pseudoprogression from tumor recurrence in patients with resected glioblastoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33(2):296-305
24. Narang J, Jain R, Arbab AS, et al. Differentiating treatment-induced necrosis from recurrent/progressive brain tumor using nonmodel-based semiquantitative indices derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR perfusion. Neuro Oncol. 2011; 13(9):1037-1046
25. Fatterpekar GM, Galheigo D, Narayana A, et al. Treatment-related change versus tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas: A diagnostic conundrum-use of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) perfusion MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(1):19-26
26. Kim YH, Oh SW, Lim YJ, et al. Differentiating radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas: Assessing the efficacy of 18F-FDG PET, 11C-methionine PET and perfusion MRI. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2010;112(9):758-765
27. Young RJ, Gupta A, Shah AD, et al. MRI perfusion in Determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging. 2013;37(1):41-49
28. Law M, Young RJ, Babb JS, et al. Gliomas: Predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2008;247(2):490-498
29. Rock JP, Hearshen D, Scarpace L, et al. Correlations between magnetic resonance spectroscopy and image-guided histopathology, with special attention to radiation necrosis. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(4):912-919. discussion 919-920
30. Schlemmer HP, Bachert P, Herfarth KK, et al. Proton MR spectroscopic evaluation of suspicious brain lesions after stereotactic radiotherapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(7):1316-1324 (Pubitemid 32734804)
31. Zeng QS, Li CF, Liu H, et al. Distinction between recurrent glioma and radiation injury using magnetic resonance spectroscopy in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(1):151-158 (Pubitemid 46589825)
32. Ricci PE, Karis JP, Heiserman JE, et al. Differentiating recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis: Time for re-evaluation of positron emission tomography?. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1998;19(3):407-413 (Pubitemid 30422740)
33. Chen W, Cloughesy T, Kamdar N, et al. Imaging proliferation in brain tumors with 18F-FLT PET: Comparison with 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):945-952 (Pubitemid 43733508)
34. Santra A, Kumar R, Sharma P, et al. F-18 FDG PET-CT in patients with recurrent glioma: Comparison with contrast enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(3):508-513
35. Ledezma CJ, Chen W, Sai V, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET/MRI fusion in patients with primary/recurrent gliomas: Initial experience. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71(2):242-248
36. Gahramanov S, Muldoon LL, Varallyay CG, et al. Pseudoprogression of Glioblastoma after Chemo- and Radiation Therapy: Diagnosis by Using Dynamic Susceptibility-weighted Contrast-enhanced Perfusion MR Imaging with Ferumoxytol versus Gadoteridol and Correlation with Survival. Radiology. 2013;266(3):842-852
37. Rosen BR, Belliveau JW, Vevea JM, et al. Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med. 1990;14(2):249-265 (Pubitemid 20248610)
38. Ostergaard L, Weisskoff RM, Chesler DA, et al. High resolution measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages. Part I: Mathematical approach and statistical analysis. Magn Reson Med. 1996;36(5):715-725 (Pubitemid 26376710)
39. Law M, Yang S, Wang H, et al. Glioma grading: Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24(10):1989-1998 (Pubitemid 37444849)
40. Hoffman WF, Levin VA, Wilson CB. Evaluation of malignant glioma patients during the postirradiation period. J Neurosurg. 1979;50(5): 624-628 (Pubitemid 9178240)
41. Van Mieghem E, Wozniak A, Geussens Y, et al. Defining pseudoprogression in glioblastoma multiforme. Eur J Neurol. 2013; 20(10):1335-1341
42. Gahramanov S, Muldoon LL, Li X, et al. Improved perfusion MR imaging assessment of intracerebral tumor blood volume and antiangiogenic therapy efficacy in a rat model with ferumoxytol. Radiology. 2011;261(3):796-804
43. Weinstein JS, Varallyay CG, Dosa E, et al. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: Diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging and potential therapeutic applications in neurooncology and central nervous system inflammatory pathologies, a review. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010;30(1):15-35
44. Kong DS, Kim ST, Kim EH, et al. Diagnostic dilemma of pseudoprogression in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastomas: The role of assessing relative cerebral blood flow volume and oxygen-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(2): 382-387
45. Varallyay CG, Nesbit E, Fu R, et al. High-resolution steadystate cerebral blood volume maps in patients with central nervous system neoplasms using ferumoxytol, a superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2013;33(5):780-786
46. Christen T, Ni W, Qiu D, et al. High-resolution cerebral blood volume imaging in humans using the blood pool contrast agent ferumoxytol [published online ahead of print September 21, 2012]. Magn Reson Med. 2012. doi:10.1002/mrm.24500
47. Heiss WD, Raab P, Lanfermann H. Multimodality assessment of brain tumors and tumor recurrence. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(10): 1585-1600
48. Van Laere K, Ceyssens S, Van Calenbergh F, et al. Direct comparison of 18F-FDG and 11C-methionine PET in suspected recurrence of glioma: Sensitivity, inter-observer variability and prognostic value. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(1):39-51 (Pubitemid 40142777)