MR perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of high-grade gliomas after treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Neuro-Oncology

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 118-127

  Patel, Praneil ^a   Baradaran, Hediyeh ^a   Delgado, Diana ^b   Askin, Gulce ^b   Christos, Paul ^b   Tsiouris, Apostolos John ^a   Gupta, Ajay ^a  

^a NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Gliomas; Meta analysis; MR perfusion; Pseudoprogression; Radiation necrosis

Indexed keywords

BRAIN BLOOD VOLUME; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RECURRENCE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; GLIOMA; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SUSCEPTIBILITY WEIGHTED IMAGING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; METABOLISM; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; CONTRAST MEDIA; GLIOMA; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 85014054076     PISSN: 15228517     EISSN: 15235866     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/now148     Document Type: Review

References (44)

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. Wick W, Wiestler B, Platten M. Treatment of anaplastic glioma. Cancer Treat Res. 2015;163:89-101.
3. Hygino da Cruz LC Jr, Rodriguez I, Domingues RC et al. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of post-treatment glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(11):1978-1985.
4. Mabray MC, Barajas RFJr, Cha S. Modern brain tumor imaging. Brain Tumor Res Treat. 2015;3(1):8-23.
5. 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.
6. Verma N, Cowperthwaite MC, Burnett MG et al. Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: a review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15(5):515-534.
7. Jahng GH, Li KL, Ostergaard L et al. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: a comprehensive update on principles and techniques. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15(5):554-577.
8. Paldino MJ, Barboriak DP. Fundamentals of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009;17(2):277-289.
9. Yankeelov TE, Gore JC. Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology: theory, data acquisition, analysis, and examples. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2009;3(2):91-107.
10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1-34.
11. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.
12. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.
13. Alexiou GA, Zikou A, Tsiouris S et al. Comparison of diffusion tensor, dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI and (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin brain SPECT for the detection of recurrent high-grade glioma. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;32(7):854-859.
14. Baek HJ, Kim HS, Kim N et al. Percent change of perfusion skew-ness and kurtosis: a potential imaging biomarker for early treatment response in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastomas. Radiology. 2012;264(3):834-843.
15. 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.
16. 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(5):575-583.
17. Cha J, Kim ST, Kim H-J et al. Differentiation of tumor progression from pseudoprogression in patients with posttreatment glioblastoma using multiparametric histogram analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(7):1309-1317.
18. Choi YJ, Kim HS, Jahng GH et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging. Acta Radiologica. 2013;54(4):448-454.
19. Chung WJ, Kim HS, Kim N et al. Recurrent glioblastoma: optimum area under the curve method derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2013;269(2):561-568.
20. Gasparetto EL, Pawlak MA, Patel SH et al. Posttreatment recurrence of malignant brain neoplasm: accuracy of relative cerebral blood volume fraction in discriminating low from high malignant histologic volume fraction. Radiology. 2009;250(3):887-896.
21. Hamilton JD, Lin J, Ison C et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion processing for neuroradiologists: model-dependent analysis may not be necessary for determining recurrent high-grade glioma versus treatment effect. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(4):686-693.
22. Heo YJ, Kim HS, Park JE et al. Uninterpretable dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion mr images in patients with post-treatment glioblastomas: cross-validation of alternative imaging options. PLoS ONE. 2015;36(12):2242-2249.
23. Hu LS, Baxter LC, Pinnaduwage DS et al. Optimized preload leakage-correction methods to improve the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in posttreatment gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(1):40-48.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Kim HS, Goh MJ, Kim N et al. Which combination of MR imaging modalities is best for predicting recurrent glioblastoma? Study of diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility. Radiology. 2014;273(3):831-843.
27. Kim HS, Kim J-H, Kim S-H 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(3):906-915.
28. Kim HS, Suh CH, Kim N et al. Histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion for differentiating recurrent tumor from treatment effect in patients with glioblastoma: initial clinical experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(3):490-497.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Martinez-Martinez A, Martinez-Bosch J. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging for high grade astrocytomas: can cerebral blood volume, peak height, and percentage of signal intensity recovery distinguish between progression and pseudoprogression? Radiologia. 2014;56(1):35-43.
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. Park JE, Kim HS, Goh MJ et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: assessment by using volume-weighted voxel-based multiparametric clustering of MR imaging data in an independent test set. Radiology. 2015;275(3):792-802.
34. Prager AJ, Martinez N, Beal K et al. Diffusion and perfusion MRI to differentiate treatment-related changes including pseudoprogression from recurrent tumors in high-grade gliomas with histopathologic evidence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(5):877-885.
35. Seeger A, Braun C, Skardelly M et al. Comparison of three different MR perfusion techniques and mr spectroscopy for multiparametric assessment in distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from stable disease. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(12):1557-1565.
36. 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.
37. Suh CH, Kim HS, Choi YJ et al. Prediction of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastomas using the initial and final area under the curves ratio derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(12):2278-2286.
38. Thomas AA, Arevalo-Perez J, Kaley T et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced T1 MRI perfusion differentiates pseudoprogression from recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2015;125(1):183-190.
39. Young RJ, Gupta A, Shah AD et al. MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging. 2013;37(1):41-49.
40. Yun TJ, Park CK, Kim TM et al. Glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy: differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression with quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;274(3):830-840.
41. Shah AH, Snelling B, Bregy A et al. Discriminating radiation necrosis from tumor progression in gliomas: a systematic review what is the best imaging modality? J Neurooncol. 2013;112(2):141-152.
42. Deng SM, Zhang B, Wu YW et al. Detection of glioma recurrence by 11C-methionine positron emission tomography and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34:758-766.
43. Hu LS, Kelm Z, Korfatis P et al. Impact of software modeling on the accuracy of perfusion MRI in glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(12):2242-2249.
44. Kelm ZS, Korfiatis PD, Lingineni RK et al. Variability and accuracy of different software packages for dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging for distinguishing glioblastoma progression from pseudoprogression. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2015;2(2):026001.