INTRODUCTION: To investigate if perfusion measured with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) can be used to differentiate radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence in patients with high-grade glioma. METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board and informed consent was obtained from all subjects. 19 patients were recruited following surgery and radiation therapy for glioma. Patients had contrast enhancing lesions, which during the standard MRI examination could not be exclusively determined as recurrence or radiation necrosis. DCE-MRI was used to measure cerebral blood volume (CBV), blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability and cerebral blood flow (CBF). Subjects also underwent FDG-PET and lesions were classified as either metabolically active or inactive. Follow-up clinical MRI and lesion histology in case of additional tissue resection was used to determine whether lesions were regressing or progressing. RESULTS: Fourteen enhancing lesions could be classified as progressing (11) or regressing (three). An empirical threshold of 2.0 ml/100 g for CBV allowed detection of regressing lesions with a sensitivity of 100 % and specificity of 100 %. FDG-PET and DCE-MRI agreed in classification of tumor status in 13 out of the 16 cases where an FDG-PET classification was obtained. In two of the remaining three patients, MRI follow-up and histology was available and both indicated that the DCE-MRI answer was correct. CONCLUSION: CBV measurements using DCE-MRI may predict the status of contrast enhancing lesions and give results very similar to FDG-PET with regards to differentiation between tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis.
INTRODUCTION: To investigate if perfusion measured with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) can be used to differentiate radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence in patients with high-grade glioma. METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board and informed consent was obtained from all subjects. 19 patients were recruited following surgery and radiation therapy for glioma. Patients had contrast enhancing lesions, which during the standard MRI examination could not be exclusively determined as recurrence or radiation necrosis. DCE-MRI was used to measure cerebral blood volume (CBV), blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability and cerebral blood flow (CBF). Subjects also underwent FDG-PET and lesions were classified as either metabolically active or inactive. Follow-up clinical MRI and lesion histology in case of additional tissue resection was used to determine whether lesions were regressing or progressing. RESULTS: Fourteen enhancing lesions could be classified as progressing (11) or regressing (three). An empirical threshold of 2.0 ml/100 g for CBV allowed detection of regressing lesions with a sensitivity of 100 % and specificity of 100 %. FDG-PET and DCE-MRI agreed in classification of tumor status in 13 out of the 16 cases where an FDG-PET classification was obtained. In two of the remaining three patients, MRI follow-up and histology was available and both indicated that the DCE-MRI answer was correct. CONCLUSION: CBV measurements using DCE-MRI may predict the status of contrast enhancing lesions and give results very similar to FDG-PET with regards to differentiation between tumor recurrence and radiation necrosis.
Authors: Soonmee Cha; Edmond A Knopp; Glyn Johnson; Stephan G Wetzel; Andrew W Litt; David Zagzag Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mark E Mullins; Glenn D Barest; Pamela W Schaefer; Fred H Hochberg; R Gilberto Gonzalez; Michael H Lev Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Frederic G Dhermain; Peter Hau; Heinrich Lanfermann; Andreas H Jacobs; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Egill Rostrup; Gitte M Knudsen; Ian Law; Søren Holm; Henrik B W Larsson; Olaf B Paulson Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: M Chorvath; E Boljesikova; L Pruzincova; V Procka; B Rychly; M Novotny; P Kalina; V Belan; I Makaiova; J Steno Journal: Neoplasma Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.575
Authors: Henrik B W Larsson; Adam E Hansen; Hilde K Berg; Egill Rostrup; Olav Haraldseth Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: P A Forsyth; P J Kelly; T L Cascino; B W Scheithauer; E G Shaw; R P Dinapoli; E J Atkinson Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Madhava P Aryal; Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Stephen L Brown; Mei Lu; Hassan Bagher-Ebadian; Guangliang Ding; Swayamprava Panda; Kelly Keenan; Glauber Cabral; Tom Mikkelsen; James R Ewing Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: J I Traylor; D C A Bastos; D Fuentes; M Muir; R Patel; V A Kumar; R J Stafford; G Rao; S S Prabhu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Melissa A Prah; Mona M Al-Gizawiy; Wade M Mueller; Elizabeth J Cochran; Raymond G Hoffmann; Jennifer M Connelly; Kathleen M Schmainda Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Andrea Horváth; Gábor Perlaki; Arnold Tóth; Gergely Orsi; Szilvia Nagy; Tamás Dóczi; Zsolt Horváth; Péter Bogner Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 4.130