Krishna Reddy1, David Westerly, Changhu Chen. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA. Krishna.Reddy@ucdenver.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the emergence of new imaging technologies, the differentiation of treatment-related changes from recurrent tumour in patients with high-grade gliomas remains a difficult challenge. We evaluated whether specific MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) T1 post-contrast enhancement patterns can help to distinguish between radiation necrosis and tumour recurrence. METHODS: This study was approved by local institutional review board. Fifty-one patients with World Health Organization grade III-IV glioma underwent reoperation after prior chemoradiation. The percentage of radiation necrosis versus recurrent tumour in reoperation specimens was estimated by an experienced neuropathologist. Enhancement patterns on T1 post-contrast sequences from the MRIs obtained prior to reoperation were evaluated according to pathology. RESULTS: T1 contrast enhancement patterns correlating with recurrent tumour included focal solid nodules and solid uniform enhancement with distinct margins. Eighty-five per cent (17/20) of patients with ≥70% recurrent tumour at reoperation demonstrated one of these patterns on preoperative MRI. Enhancement patterns correlating with radiation necrosis included a hazy mesh-like diffuse enhancement and rim enhancement with feathery indistinct margins. Ninety-four per cent (17/18) of patients with ≥70% radiation necrosis demonstrated one of these two patterns. Thirteen cases had more mixed pathology (>30% of tumour/necrosis) and demonstrated patterns associated with recurrence and/or necrosis. Compared to MR spectroscopy performed in 10 patients, enhancement patterns on MRI were just as accurate in predicting pathologic diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Identifying distinct patterns of contrast enhancement on MRI may help to differentiate between radiation necrosis and tumour recurrence in high-grade gliomas.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the emergence of new imaging technologies, the differentiation of treatment-related changes from recurrent tumour in patients with high-grade gliomas remains a difficult challenge. We evaluated whether specific MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) T1 post-contrast enhancement patterns can help to distinguish between radiation necrosis and tumour recurrence. METHODS: This study was approved by local institutional review board. Fifty-one patients with World Health Organization grade III-IV glioma underwent reoperation after prior chemoradiation. The percentage of radiation necrosis versus recurrent tumour in reoperation specimens was estimated by an experienced neuropathologist. Enhancement patterns on T1 post-contrast sequences from the MRIs obtained prior to reoperation were evaluated according to pathology. RESULTS: T1 contrast enhancement patterns correlating with recurrent tumour included focal solid nodules and solid uniform enhancement with distinct margins. Eighty-five per cent (17/20) of patients with ≥70% recurrent tumour at reoperation demonstrated one of these patterns on preoperative MRI. Enhancement patterns correlating with radiation necrosis included a hazy mesh-like diffuse enhancement and rim enhancement with feathery indistinct margins. Ninety-four per cent (17/18) of patients with ≥70% radiation necrosis demonstrated one of these two patterns. Thirteen cases had more mixed pathology (>30% of tumour/necrosis) and demonstrated patterns associated with recurrence and/or necrosis. Compared to MR spectroscopy performed in 10 patients, enhancement patterns on MRI were just as accurate in predicting pathologic diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Identifying distinct patterns of contrast enhancement on MRI may help to differentiate between radiation necrosis and tumour recurrence in high-grade gliomas.
Authors: P Tiwari; P Prasanna; L Wolansky; M Pinho; M Cohen; A P Nayate; A Gupta; G Singh; K J Hatanpaa; A Sloan; L Rogers; A Madabhushi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Madison R Hansen; Edward Pan; Andrew Wilson; Morgan McCreary; Yeqi Wang; Thomas Stanley; Marco C Pinho; Xiaohu Guo; Darin T Okuda Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: David C Soler; Andrew B Young; Kevin D Cooper; Amber Kerstetter-Fogle; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Haley Gittleman; Thomas S McCormick; Andrew E Sloan Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 4.130