PURPOSE: To determine whether the combined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) before radiation therapy (RT) is valuable for RT target definition, and to evaluate the feasibility of replacing the current definition of uniform margins by custom-shaped margins based on the information from MRI and MRSI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 23 glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients underwent MRI and MRSI within 4 weeks after surgery but before the initiation of RT and at 2-month follow-up intervals thereafter. The MRSI data were quantified on the basis of a Choline-to-NAA Index (CNI) as a measure of spectroscopic abnormality. A combined anatomic and metabolic region of interest (MRI/S) consisting of T2-weighted hyperintensity, contrast enhancement (CE), resection cavity, and CNI2 (CNI >or= 2) based on the pre-RT imaging was compared to the extent of CNI2 and the RT dose distribution. The spatial relationship of the pre-RT MRI/S and the RT dose volume was compared with the extent of CE at each follow-up. RESULTS: Nine patients showed new or increased CE during follow-up, and 14 patients were either stable or had decreased CE. New or increased areas of CE occurred within CNI2 that was covered by 60 Gy in 6 patients and within the CNI2 that was not entirely covered by 60 Gy in 3 patients. New or increased CE resided within the pre-RT MRI/S lesion in 89% (8/9) of the patients with new or increased CE. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the definition of RT target volumes according to the combined morphologic and metabolic abnormality may be sufficient for RT targeting.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the combined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) before radiation therapy (RT) is valuable for RT target definition, and to evaluate the feasibility of replacing the current definition of uniform margins by custom-shaped margins based on the information from MRI and MRSI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 23 glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients underwent MRI and MRSI within 4 weeks after surgery but before the initiation of RT and at 2-month follow-up intervals thereafter. The MRSI data were quantified on the basis of a Choline-to-NAA Index (CNI) as a measure of spectroscopic abnormality. A combined anatomic and metabolic region of interest (MRI/S) consisting of T2-weighted hyperintensity, contrast enhancement (CE), resection cavity, and CNI2 (CNI >or= 2) based on the pre-RT imaging was compared to the extent of CNI2 and the RT dose distribution. The spatial relationship of the pre-RT MRI/S and the RT dose volume was compared with the extent of CE at each follow-up. RESULTS: Nine patients showed new or increased CE during follow-up, and 14 patients were either stable or had decreased CE. New or increased areas of CE occurred within CNI2 that was covered by 60 Gy in 6 patients and within the CNI2 that was not entirely covered by 60 Gy in 3 patients. New or increased CE resided within the pre-RT MRI/S lesion in 89% (8/9) of the patients with new or increased CE. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the definition of RT target volumes according to the combined morphologic and metabolic abnormality may be sufficient for RT targeting.
Authors: B De Coene; J V Hajnal; P Gatehouse; D B Longmore; S J White; A Oatridge; J M Pennock; I R Young; G M Bydder Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1992 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Tracy R McKnight; Mary H von dem Bussche; Daniel B Vigneron; Ying Lu; Mitchel S Berger; Michael W McDermott; William P Dillon; Edward E Graves; Andrea Pirzkall; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: A Pirzkall; T R McKnight; E E Graves; M P Carol; P K Sneed; W W Wara; S J Nelson; L J Verhey; D A Larson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrea Pirzkall; Sarah J Nelson; Tracy R McKnight; Michelle M Takahashi; Xiaojuan Li; Edward E Graves; Lynn J Verhey; William W Wara; David A Larson; Penny K Sneed Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P Farace; M G Giri; G Meliadò; D Amelio; L Widesott; G K Ricciardi; S Dall'Oglio; A Rizzotti; A Sbarbati; A Beltramello; S Maluta; M Amichetti Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Janine M Lupo; Cynthia F Chuang; Susan M Chang; Igor J Barani; Bert Jimenez; Christopher P Hess; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: N Andres Parra; Andrew A Maudsley; Rakesh K Gupta; Fazilat Ishkanian; Kris Huang; Gail R Walker; Kyle Padgett; Bhaswati Roy; Joseph Panoff; Arnold Markoe; Radka Stoyanova Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Manickam Muruganandham; Patrick P Clerkin; Brian J Smith; Carryn M Anderson; Ann Morris; Aristides A Capizzano; Vincent Magnotta; Sarah M McGuire; Mark C Smith; John E Bayouth; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-06-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew Elson; Eric Paulson; Joseph Bovi; Malika Siker; Chris Schultz; Peter S Laviolette Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Mekhail Anwar; Annette M Molinaro; Olivier Morin; Susan M Chang; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Sarah J Nelson; Janine M Lupo Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 2.841