Literature DB >> 21571478

Differentiation between intra-axial metastatic tumor progression and radiation injury following fractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic radiosurgery using MR spectroscopy, perfusion MR imaging or volume progression modeling.

Jiayi Huang1, Ay-Ming Wang, Anil Shetty, Ann H Maitz, Di Yan, Danielle Doyle, Kenneth Richey, Sean Park, Daniel R Pieper, Peter Y Chen, Inga Siiner Grills.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), perfusion MR imaging (MRP), or volume modeling in distinguishing tumor progression from radiation injury following radiotherapy for brain metastasis.
METHODS: Twenty-six patients with 33 intra-axial metastatic lesions who underwent MRS (n=41) with or without MRP (n=32) after cranial irradiation were retrospectively studied. The final diagnosis was based on histopathology (n=4) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up with clinical correlation (n=29). Cho/Cr (choline/creatinine), Cho/NAA (choline/N-acetylaspartate), Cho/nCho (choline/contralateral normal brain choline) ratios were retrospectively calculated for the multi-voxel MRS. Relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), relative peak height (rPH) and percentage of signal-intensity recovery (PSR) were also retrospectively derived for the MRPs. Tumor volumes were determined using manual segmentation method and analyzed using different volume progression modeling. Different ratios or models were tested and plotted on the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), with their performances quantified as area under the ROC curve (AUC). MRI follow-up time was calculated from the date of initial radiotherapy until the last MRI or the last MRI before surgical diagnosis.
RESULTS: Median MRI follow-up was 16 months (range: 2-33). Thirty percent of lesions (n=10) were determined to be radiation injury; 70% (n=23) were determined to be tumor progression. For the MRS, Cho/nCho had the best performance (AUC of 0.612), and Cho/nCho >1.2 had 33% sensitivity and 100% specificity in predicting tumor progression. For the MRP, rCBV had the best performance (AUC of 0.802), and rCBV >2 had 56% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The best volume model was percent increase (AUC of 0.891); 65% tumor volume increase had 100% sensitivity and 80% specificity.
CONCLUSION: Cho/nCho of MRS, rCBV of MRP, and percent increase of MRI volume modeling provide the best discrimination of intra-axial metastatic tumor progression from radiation injury for their respective modalities. Cho/nCho and rCBV appear to have high specificities but low sensitivities. In contrast, percent volume increase of 65% can be a highly sensitive and moderately specific predictor for tumor progression after radiotherapy. Future incorporation of 65% volume increase as a pretest selection criterion may compensate for the low sensitivities of MRS and MRP.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21571478     DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2011.04.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 0730-725X            Impact factor:   2.546


  25 in total

Review 1.  Brain metastases: neuroimaging.

Authors:  Whitney B Pope
Journal:  Handb Clin Neurol       Date:  2018

2.  Which is the best advanced MR imaging protocol for predicting recurrent metastatic brain tumor following gamma-knife radiosurgery: focused on perfusion method.

Authors:  Myeong Ju Koh; Ho Sung Kim; Choong Gon Choi; Sang Joon Kim
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  Temporal evolution of perfusion parameters in brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery: comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Anish Kapadia; Hatef Mehrabian; John Conklin; Sean P Symons; Pejman J Maralani; Greg J Stanisz; Arjun Sahgal; Hany Soliman; Chinthaka C Heyn
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 4.  Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: a review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies.

Authors:  Nishant Verma; Matthew C Cowperthwaite; Mark G Burnett; Mia K Markey
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 5.  Accuracy of percentage of signal intensity recovery and relative cerebral blood volume derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted, contrast-enhanced MRI in the preoperative diagnosis of cerebral tumours.

Authors:  Ananya Chakravorty; Timothy Steel; Joga Chaganti
Journal:  Neuroradiol J       Date:  2015-10-16

6.  The effect of pulse sequence parameters and contrast agent dose on percentage signal recovery in DSC-MRI: implications for clinical applications.

Authors:  J L Boxerman; E S Paulson; M A Prah; K M Schmainda
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  Imaging challenges of immunotherapy and targeted therapy in patients with brain metastases: response, progression, and pseudoprogression.

Authors:  Norbert Galldiks; Martin Kocher; Garry Ceccon; Jan-Michael Werner; Anna Brunn; Martina Deckert; Whitney B Pope; Riccardo Soffietti; Emilie Le Rhun; Michael Weller; Jörg C Tonn; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2020-01-11       Impact factor: 12.300

8.  MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma.

Authors:  Robert J Young; Ajay Gupta; Akash D Shah; Jerome J Graber; Timothy A Chan; Zhigang Zhang; Weiji Shi; Kathryn Beal; Antonio M Omuro
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 1.605

Review 9.  Imaging changes following stereotactic radiosurgery for metastatic intracranial tumors: differentiating pseudoprogression from tumor progression and its effect on clinical practice.

Authors:  Jacob Ruzevick; Lawrence Kleinberg; Daniele Rigamonti
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 10.  Perfusion MRI as a diagnostic biomarker for differentiating glioma from brain metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chong Hyun Suh; Ho Sung Kim; Seung Chai Jung; Choong Gon Choi; Sang Joon Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.