Pros and cons of current brain tumor imaging

Neuro-Oncology

Volumn 16, Issue , 2014, Pages vii2-vii11

  Ellingson, Benjamin M ^a,b   Wen, Patrick Y ^c   Van Den Bent, Martin J ^d   Cloughesy, Timothy F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of California   (United States)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d ERASMUS MC CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Endpoints; MRI; RANO; Response assessment.

Indexed keywords

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CANCER STAGING; GLIOMA; HUMAN; NEUROIMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; GLIOMA; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NEUROIMAGING; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS;

EID: 84965190602     PISSN: 15228517     EISSN: 15235866     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nou224     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Farah P, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2006–2010. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15:(Suppl 2):ii1–i56.
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.
3. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, et al. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(5): 459–466.
4. Weller M, Cloughesy T, Perry JR, et al. Standards of care for treatment of recurrent glioblastoma—are we there yet? Neuro Oncol. 2013; 15(1):4–27.
5. Lamborn KR, Yung WK, Chang SM, et al. Progression-free survival: an important end point in evaluating therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2008;10(2):162–170.
6. Provenzale JM, Ison C, Delong D. Bidimensional measurements in brain tumors: assessment of interobserver variability. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):W515–W522.
7. Niendorf HP, Laniado M, Semmler W, et al. Dose administration of gadolinium-DTPA in MR imaging of intracranial tumors. Am J Neuroradiol. 1987;8(5):803–815.
8. Kelly PJ, Daumas-Duport C, Scheithauer BW, et al. Stereotactic histologic correlations of computed tomography- and magnetic resonance imaging-defined abnormalities in patients with glial neoplasms. Mayo Clin Proc. 1987;62(6):450–459.
9. Kelly PJ, Daumas-Duport C, Kispert DB, et al. Imaging-based stereotaxic serial biopsies in untreated intracranial glial neoplasms. J Neurosurg. 1987;66(6):865–874.
10. 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.
11. Levin VA, Crafts DC, Norman DM, et al. Criteria for evaluating patients undergoing chemotherapy for malignant brain tumors. J Neurosurg. 1977;47(3):329–335.
12. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47(1):207–214.
13. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(3):205–216.
14. van den Bent MJ, Brandes AA, Taphoorn MJ, et al. Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglioma: long-term follow-up of EORTC brain tumor group study 26951. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(3): 344–350.
15. Cairncross G, Wang M, Shaw E, et al. Phase III trial of chemoradiotherapy for anaplastic oligodendroglioma: long-term results of RTOG 9402. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(3):337–343.
16. Hajnal JV, De Coene B, Lewis PD, et al. High signal regions in normal white matter shown by heavily T2-weighted CSF nulled IR sequences. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1992;16(4):506–513.
17. De Coene B, Hajnal JV, Gatehouse P, et al. MR of the brain using fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) pulse sequences. Am J Neuroradiol. 1992;13(6):1555–1564.
18. Henson JW, Ulmer S, Harris GJ. Brain tumor imaging in clinical trials. Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(3):419–424.
19. Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Wen PY, et al. Response criteria for glioma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008;5(11):634–644.
20. van den Bent MJ, Vogelbaum MA, Wen PY, et al. End point assessment in gliomas: novel treatments limit usefulness of classical Macdonald’s criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(18):2905–2908.
21. Ellingson BM, Lai A, Harris RJ, et al. Probabilistic radiographic atlas of glioblastoma phenotypes. Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(3):533–540.
22. Chamberlain MC. Radiographic patterns of relapse in glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2011;101(2):319–323.
23. Jain RK, di Tomaso E, Duda DG, et al. Angiogenesis in brain tumours. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007;8(8):610–622.
24. Zinn PO, Mahajan B, Sathyan P, et al. Radiogenomic mapping of edema/cellular invasion MRI-phenotypes in glioblastoma multiforme. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25451.
25. Pope WB, Chen JH, Dong J, et al. Relationship between gene expression and enhancement in glioblastoma multiforme: exploratory DNA microarray analysis. Radiology. 2008;249(1): 268–277.
26. Gallego Perez-Larraya J, Lahutte M, Petrirena G, et al. Response assessment in recurrent glioblastoma treated with irinotecan-bevacizumab: comparative analysis of the Macdonald, RECIST, RANO, and RECIST + F criteria. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(5):667–673.
27. 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.
28. Mehta AI, Kanaly CW, Friedman AH, et al. Monitoring radiographic brain tumor progression. Toxins (Basel). 2011;3(3):191–200.
29. Chinot OL, Macdonald DR, Abrey LE, et al. Response assessment criteria for glioblastoma: practical adaptation and implementation in clinical trials of antiangiogenic therapy. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2013;13(5):347.
30. Pope WB, Young JR, Ellingson BM. Advances in MRI assessment of gliomas and response to anti-VEGF therapy. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2011;11(3):336–344.
31. Quant EC, Wen PY. Response assessment in neuro-oncology. Curr Oncol Rep. 2011;13(1):50–56.
32. Pope WB, Hessel C. Response assessment in neuro-oncology criteria: implementation challenges in multicenter neuro-oncology trials. Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(5):794–797.
33. Reardon DA, Galanis E, DeGroot JF, et al. Clinical trial end points for high-grade glioma: the evolving landscape. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13(3): 353–361.
34. Khan SN, Linetsky M, Ellingson BM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of glioma in the era of antiangiogenic therapy. PET Clinics. 2013;8(2):163–182.
35. Pope WB, Lai A, Nghiemphu P, et al. MRI in patients with high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. Neurology. 2006;66(8):1258–1260.
36. Chamberlain MC. MRI in patients with high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. Neurology. 2006;67(11): 2089; author reply 2089.
37. Sathornsumetee S, Cao Y, Marcello JE, et al. Tumor angiogenic and hypoxic profiles predict radiographic response and survival in malignant astrocytoma patients treated with bevacizumab and irinotecan. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):271–278.
38. Norden AD, Young GS, Setayesh K, et al. Bevacizumab for recurrent malignant gliomas: efficacy, toxicity, and patterns of recurrence. Neurology. 2008;70(10):779–787.
39. Bokstein F, Shpigel S, Blumenthal DT. Treatment with bevacizumab and irinotecan for recurrent high-grade glial tumors. Cancer. 2008; 112(10):2267–2273.
40. Ananthnarayan S, Bahng J, Roring J, et al. Time course of imaging changes of GBM during extended bevacizumab treatment. J Neurooncol. 2008;88(3):339–347.
41. Kang TY, Jin T, Elinzano H, et al. Irinotecan and bevacizumab in progressive primary brain tumors, an evaluation of efficacy and safety. J Neurooncol. 2008;89(1):113–118.
42. de Groot JF, Yung WK. Bevacizumab and irinotecan in the treatment of recurrent malignant gliomas. Cancer J. 2008;14(5):279–285.
43. Zuniga RM, Torcuator R, Jain R, et al. Efficacy, safety and patterns of response and recurrence in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab plus irinotecan. J Neurooncol. 2009;91(3):329–336.
44. Batchelor TT, Sorensen AG, di Tomaso E, et al. AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Cell. 2007;11(1): 83–95.
45. Friedman HS, Prados MD, Wen PY, et al. Bevacizumab alone and in combination with irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4733–4740.
46. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE 2nd, et al. Phase II trial of bevacizumab and irinotecan in recurrent malignant glioma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(4):1253–1259.
47. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE 2nd, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(30):4722–4729.
48. Friedman HS, Petros WP, Friedman AH, et al. Irinotecan therapy in adults with recurrent or progressive malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(5):1516–1525.
49. Cloughesy TF, Filka E, Kuhn J, et al. Two studies evaluating irinotecan treatment for recurrent malignant glioma using an every-3-week regimen. Cancer. 2003;97:(9 Suppl):2381–2386.
50. Raymond E, Fabbro M, Boige V, et al. Multicentre phase II study and pharmacokinetic analysis of irinotecan in chemotherapy-naive patients with glioblastoma. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(4):603–614.
51. Prados MD, Lamborn K, Yung WK, et al. A phase 2 trial of irinotecan (CPT-11) in patients with recurrent malignant glioma: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium study. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8(2): 189–193.
52. Hygino da Cruz LC Jr, Rodriguez I, Domingues RC, et al. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. Am J Neuroradiol. 2011; 32(11):1978–1985.
53. Nowosielski M, Wiestler B, Goebel G, et al. Progression types after anti-angiogenic therapy are related to outcome in recurrent glioblastoma. Neurology. 2014;82(19):1684–1692.
54. Lucio-Eterovic AK, Piao Y, de Groot JF. Mediators of glioblastoma resistance and invasion during antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(14):4589–4599.
55. de Groot JF, Fuller G, Kumar AJ, et al. Tumor invasion after treatment of glioblastoma with bevacizumab: radiographic and pathologic correlation in humans and mice. Neuro Oncol. 2010;12(3):233–242.
56. Narayana A, Kelly P, Golfinos J, et al. Antiangiogenic therapy using bevacizumab in recurrent high-grade glioma: impact on local control and patient survival. J Neurosurg. 2009;110(1):173–180.
57. Iwamoto FM, Abrey LE, Beal K, et al. Patterns of relapse and prognosis after bevacizumab failure in recurrent glioblastoma. Neurology. 2009;73(15):1200–1206.
58. Prados M, Cloughesy T, Samant M, et al. Response as a predictor of survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13(1):143–151.
59. Schaub C, Greschus S, Seifert M, et al. FLAIR-only progression in bevacizumab-treated relapsing glioblastoma does not predict short survival. Oncology. 2013;85(3):191–195.
60. Radbruch A, Lutz K, Wiestler B, et al. Relevance of T2 signal changes in the assessment of progression of glioblastoma according to the Response Assessment in Neurooncology criteria. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(2):222–229.
61. Boxerman JL, Zhang Z, Safriel Y, et al. Early post-bevacizumab progression on contrast-enhanced MRI as a prognostic marker for overall survival in recurrent glioblastoma: results from the ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625 Central Reader Study. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15(7): 945–954.
62. Huang RY, Rahman R, Pope WB, et al. Validation of RANO criteria: contribution of T2/FLAIR assessment in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Paper presented at: ASCO Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL, 2014.
63. Wick A, Dorner N, Schafer N, et al. Bevacizumab does not increase the risk of remote relapse in malignant glioma. Ann Neurol. 2011; 69(3):586–592.
64. Pope WB, Xia Q, Paton VE, et al. Patterns of progression in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Neurology. 2011;76(5):432–437.
65. Wick W, Wick A, Weiler M, et al. Patterns of progression in malignant glioma following anti-VEGF therapy: perceptions and evidence. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2011;11(3):305–312.
66. Li YQ, Chen P, Haimovitz-Friedman A, et al. Endothelial apoptosis initiates acute blood-brain barrier disruption after ionizing radiation. Cancer Res. 2003;63(18):5950–5956.
67. Fajardo LF, Bathrong M, Anderson RE. Radiation Pathology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
68. Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, et al. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(5):453–461.
69. Fiegler W, Langer M, Scheer M, et al. [Reversible computed tomographic changes following brain tumor irradiation induced by the ‘early-delayed reaction’ after radiation]. Radiologe. 1986;26(4): 206–209.
70. Watne K, Hager B, Heier M, et al. Reversible oedema and necrosis after irradiation of the brain. Diagnostic procedures and clinical manifestations. Acta Oncol. 1990;29(7):891–895.
71. Soussain C, Ricard D, Fike JR, et al. CNS complications of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Lancet. 2009;374(9701):1639–1651.
72. 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.
73. Griebel M, Friedman HS, Halperin EC, et al. Reversible neurotoxicity following hyperfractionated radiation therapy of brain stem glioma. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1991;19(3):182–186.
74. de Wit MC, de Bruin HG, Eijkenboom W, et al. Immediate post-radiotherapy changes in malignant glioma can mimic tumor progression. Neurology. 2004;63(3):535–537.
75. 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.
76. Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, et al. MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(13): 2192–2197.
77. 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.
78. Mangla R, Singh G, Ziegelitz D, et al. Changes in relative cerebral blood volume 1 month after radiation-temozolomide therapy can help predict overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology. 2010;256(2):575–584.
79. 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.
80. Sanghera P, Perry J, Sahgal A, et al. Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme. Can J Neurol Sci. 2010;37(1):36–42.
81. Clarke JL, Abrey LE, Karimi S, et al. Pseudoprogression (PsPr) after concurrent radiotherapy (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ) for newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(15S May 20 Suppl):2025.
82. 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.
83. Jefferies S, Burton K, Jones P, Burnet N, et al. Interpretation of early imaging after concurrent radiotherapy and temozolomide in glioblastoma. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2007;19(3 Suppl):S33.
84. 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.
85. Kumar AJ, Leeds NE, Fuller GN, et al. Malignant gliomas: MR imaging spectrum of radiation therapy- and chemotherapy-induced necrosis of the brain after treatment. Radiology. 2000;217(2):377–384.
86. Yoneoka Y, Satoh M, Akiyama K, et al. An experimental study of radiation-induced cognitive dysfunction in an adult rat model. Br J Radiol. 1999;72(864):1196–1201.
87. Ruben JD, Dally M, Bailey M, et al. Cerebral radiation necrosis: incidence, outcomes, and risk factors with emphasis on radiation parameters and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65(2):499–508.
88. 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.
89. 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. Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(3):552–558.
90. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Tomiguchi S, et al. Posttherapeutic intraaxial brain tumor: the value of perfusion-sensitive contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating tumor recurrence from nonneoplastic contrast-enhancing tissue. Am J Neuroradiol. 2000; 21(5):901–909.
91. Baek HJ, Kim HS, Kim N, et al. 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.
92. Pauleit D, Floeth F, Hamacher K, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)L-tyrosine PET combined with MRI improves the diagnostic assessment of cerebral gliomas. Brain. 2005;128(Pt 3):678–687.