Glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy: Differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression with quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR Imaging

Radiology

Volumn 274, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 830-840

  Yun, Tae Jin ^a,b   Park, Chul Kee ^b   Kim, Tae Min ^b   Lee, Se Hoon ^b   Kim, Ji Hoon ^a,b   Sohn, Chul Ho ^a,b   Park, Sung Hye ^b   Kim, Il Han ^b   Choi, Seung Hong ^a,b,c,d  

^a Seoul National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University Hospital   (South Korea)

^c Institute for Basic Science   (South Korea)

^d Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALKYLATING AGENT; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DACARBAZINE; TEMOZOLOMIDE;

ADULT; AGED; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE COURSE; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS, ALKYLATING; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; CONTRAST MEDIA; DACARBAZINE; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84924301211     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132632     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. 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
2. Erpolat OP, Akmansu M, Goksel F, Bora H, Yaman E, Büyükberber S. Outcome of newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients treated by radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide: A long-term analysis. Tumori 2009;95(2): 191-197
3. Jeon HJ, Kong DS, Park KB, et al. Clinical outcome of concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant temozolomide therapy for glioblastaomas: Single-center experience. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2009;111(8): 679-682
4. Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, Sminia P, van den Bent MJ. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2008;9(5): 453-461
5. 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
6. 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
7. Baek HJ, Kim HS, Kim N, Choi YJ, Kim YJ. Percent change of perfusion skewness and kurtosis: A potential imaging biomarker for early treatment response in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastomas. Radiology 2012;264(3): 834-843
8. Choi YJ, Kim HS, Jahng GH, Kim SJ, Suh DC. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: Added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging. Acta Radiol 2013;54(4): 448-454
9. Chu HH, Choi SH, Ryoo I, et al. Differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with radiation therapy and concomitant temozolomide: Comparison study of standard and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging. Radiology 2013;269(3): 831-840
10. Lee WJ, Choi SH, Park CK, et al. Diffusionweighted MR imaging for the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression following concomitant radiotherapy with temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas. Acad Radiol 2012;19(11): 1353-1361
11. Song YS, Choi SH, Park CK, et al. True progression versus pseudoprogression in the treatment of glioblastomas: A comparison study of normalized cerebral blood volume and apparent diffusion coefficient by histogram analysis. Korean J Radiol 2013;14(4): 662-672
12. 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
13. Haroon HA, Buckley DL, Patankar TA, et al. A comparison of Ktrans measurements obtained with conventional and first pass pharmacokinetic models in human gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19(5): 527-536
14. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: Standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10(3): 223-232
15. Tofts PS, Kermode AG. Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. I. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 1991;17(2): 357-367
16. Haacke EM, Filleti CL, Gattu R, et al. New algorithm for quantifying vascular changes in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI independent of absolute T1 values. Magn Reson Med 2007;58(3): 463-472
17. Pluim JP, Maintz JB, Viergever MA. Mutualinformation-based registration of medical images: A survey. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2003;22(8): 986-1004
18. Sundar H, Shen D, Biros G, Xu C, Davatzikos C. Robust computation of mutual information using spatially adaptive meshes. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2007;10(Pt 1): 950-958
19. Hauck WW, Miike R. A proposal for examining and reporting stepwise regressions. Stat Med 1991;10(5): 711-715
20. Roberts HC, Roberts TP, Bollen AW, Ley S, Brasch RC, Dillon WP. Correlation of microvascular permeability derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with histologic grade and tumor labeling index: A study in human brain tumors. Acad Radiol 2001;8(5): 384-391
21. Zhu XP, Li KL, Kamaly-Asl ID, et al. Quantification of endothelial permeability, leakage space, and blood volume in brain tumors using combined T1 and T2.∗ contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;11(6): 575-585
22. Hazle JD, Jackson EF, Schomer DF, Leeds NE. Dynamic imaging of intracranial lesions using fast spin-echo imaging: Differentiation of brain tumors and treatment effects. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7(6): 1084-1093
23. 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 contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009;253(2): 486-496
24. Hopewell JW, Calvo W, Jaenke R, Reinhold HS, Robbins ME, Whitehouse EM. Microvasculature and radiation damage. Recent Results Cancer Res 1993;130: 1-16
25. Oh BC, Liu CY, Wang MY, Pagnini PG, Yu C, Apuzzo ML. Stereotactic radiosurgery: Adjacent tissue injury and response after highdose single fraction radiation. II. Strategies for therapeutic enhancement, brain injury mitigation, and brain injury repair. Neurosurgery 2007;60(5): 799-814; discussion 799-814
26. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, et al. Correlation of MR imaging-determined cerebral blood volume maps with histologic and angiographic determination of vascularity of gliomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171(6): 1479-1486
27. Wesseling P, Ruiter DJ, Burger PC. Angiogenesis in brain tumors; pathobiological and clinical aspects. J Neurooncol 1997;32(3): 253-265
28. Cha S, Lupo JM, Chen MH, et al. Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and single brain metastasis by peak height and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28(6): 1078-1084
29. Lupo JM, Cha S, Chang SM, Nelson SJ. Dynamic susceptibility-weighted perfusion imaging of high-grade gliomas: Characterization of spatial heterogeneity. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26(6): 1446-1454
30. Tofilon PJ, Fike JR. The radioresponse of the central nervous system: A dynamic process. Radiat Res 2000;153(4): 357-370
31. Wong CS, Van der Kogel AJ. Mechanisms of radiation injury to the central nervous system: Implications for neuroprotection. Mol Interv 2004;4(5): 273-284
32. 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
33. Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD. Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn Reson Med 1995; 33(4): 564-568
34. Jung SC, Choi SH, Yeom JA, et al. Cerebral blood volume analysis in glioblastomas using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: A comparison of manual and semiautomatic segmentation methods. PLoS ONE 2013;8(8): E69323.