RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Distinguishing recurrent glial tumor from radiation necrosis can be challenging. The purpose of this pilot study was to preliminarily compare unenhanced arterial spin-labeled (ASL) imaging, dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced cerebral blood volume (DSCE-CBV) magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging in distinguishing predominant glioma recurrence or progression from predominant radiation necrosis in postoperative patients treated with proton-beam therapy. METHODS: Patients with grade II to IV glioma previously treated with surgery and proton-beam therapy were enrolled on the basis of new enhancing nodules or masses with primary differential diagnoses of predominant tumor recurrence or progression versus radiation necrosis. ASL, DSCE-CBV, and PET examinations were assessed by visual qualitative and quantitative analysis for the detection of predominant tumor recurrence. Imaging results were correlated with a clinical-pathologic reference standard. RESULTS: Thirty patients were studied, resulting in 33 ASL, 32 DSCE-CBV, and 26 PET examinations. On the basis of visual inspection, the sensitivities of PET, ASL, and DSCE-CBV examinations for detecting high-grade tumor foci were 81%, 88%, and 86%, respectively. The highest sensitivity values for quantitative ASL imaging were obtained using a normalized cutoff ratio of 1.3, resulting in sensitivity of 94% for ASL imaging and 71% for DSCE-CBV imaging. When predominant high-grade tumors with superimposed regions of predominant mixed radiation necrosis were excluded, DSCE-CBV sensitivity improved to 90%, but ASL sensitivity remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DSCE-CBV imaging, ASL imaging may more accurately distinguish predominant recurrent high-grade glioma from radiation necrosis, especially in regions with mixed radiation necrosis, for which DSCE-CBV imaging may underestimate true blood volume because of leakage artifacts.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Distinguishing recurrent glial tumor from radiation necrosis can be challenging. The purpose of this pilot study was to preliminarily compare unenhanced arterial spin-labeled (ASL) imaging, dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced cerebral blood volume (DSCE-CBV) magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging in distinguishing predominant glioma recurrence or progression from predominant radiation necrosis in postoperative patients treated with proton-beam therapy. METHODS:Patients with grade II to IV glioma previously treated with surgery and proton-beam therapy were enrolled on the basis of new enhancing nodules or masses with primary differential diagnoses of predominant tumor recurrence or progression versus radiation necrosis. ASL, DSCE-CBV, and PET examinations were assessed by visual qualitative and quantitative analysis for the detection of predominant tumor recurrence. Imaging results were correlated with a clinical-pathologic reference standard. RESULTS: Thirty patients were studied, resulting in 33 ASL, 32 DSCE-CBV, and 26 PET examinations. On the basis of visual inspection, the sensitivities of PET, ASL, and DSCE-CBV examinations for detecting high-grade tumor foci were 81%, 88%, and 86%, respectively. The highest sensitivity values for quantitative ASL imaging were obtained using a normalized cutoff ratio of 1.3, resulting in sensitivity of 94% for ASL imaging and 71% for DSCE-CBV imaging. When predominant high-grade tumors with superimposed regions of predominant mixed radiation necrosis were excluded, DSCE-CBV sensitivity improved to 90%, but ASL sensitivity remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DSCE-CBV imaging, ASL imaging may more accurately distinguish predominant recurrent high-grade glioma from radiation necrosis, especially in regions with mixed radiation necrosis, for which DSCE-CBV imaging may underestimate true blood volume because of leakage artifacts.
Authors: G Lai; A Mahadevan; D Hackney; P C Warnke; F Nigim; E Kasper; E T Wong; B S Carter; C C Chen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Yoon-Hee K Cha; Mayank A Jog; Yoon-Chung Kim; Shruthi Chakrapani; Stephen M Kraman; Danny J J Wang Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2013-08-21 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: William R Masch; Page I Wang; Thomas L Chenevert; Larry Junck; Christina Tsien; Jason A Heth; Pia C Sundgren Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: A Jena; S Taneja; A Jha; N K Damesha; P Negi; G K Jadhav; S M Verma; S K Sogani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Michael S Enslow; Lauren V Zollinger; Kathryn A Morton; Regan I Butterfield; Dan J Kadrmas; Paul E Christian; Kenneth M Boucher; Marta E Heilbrun; Randy L Jensen; John M Hoffman Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 7.794