Literature DB >> 23771912

Differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with radiation therapy and concomitant temozolomide: comparison study of standard and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging.

Hee Ho Chu1, Seung Hong Choi, Inseon Ryoo, Soo Chin Kim, Jeong A Yeom, Hwaseon Shin, Seung Chai Jung, A Leum Lee, Tae Jin Yoon, Tae Min Kim, Se-Hoon Lee, Chul-Kee Park, Ji-Hoon Kim, Chul-Ho Sohn, Sung-Hye Park, Il Han Kim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore the role of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps obtained at standard- and high-b-value (1000 and 3000 sec/mm(2), respectively) diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging in the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with radiation therapy and concomitant temozolomide.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board of Seoul National University Hospital, and informed consent requirement was waived. Thirty patients with histopathologically proved glioblastoma who had undergone concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CCRT) with temozolomide underwent diffusion-weighted MR imaging with b values of 1000 and 3000 sec/mm(2), and corresponding ADC maps were calculated from entire newly developed or enlarged enhancing lesions after completion of CCRT. Histogram parameters of each ADC map between true progression (n = 15) and pseudoprogression (n = 15) groups were compared by using the unpaired Student t test. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the best cutoff values for predictors in the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression. Results were validated in an independent test set of nine patients by using the best cutoff value to predict differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression. The accuracy of the selected best cutoff value in the independent test set was then calculated.
RESULTS: In terms of cumulative histograms, the fifth percentile of both ADC at b value of 1000 sec/mm(2) (ADC1000) and the ADC at b value of 3000 sec/mm(2) (ADC3000) were significantly lower in the true progression group than in the pseudoprogression group (P = .049 and P < .001, respectively). In contrast, neither the mean ADC1000 nor the mean ADC3000 was significantly different between the two groups. The diagnostic values of the parameters derived from ADC1000 and ADC3000 were compared, and a significant difference (0.224, P = .016) was found between the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the fifth percentile for ADC1000 and that for ADC3000. The accuracies were 66.7% (six of nine patients) and 88.9% (eight of nine patients) based on the fifth percentile of both ADC1000 and ADC3000 in the independent test set, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The fifth percentile of the cumulative ADC histogram obtained at a high b value was the most promising parameter in the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression of the newly developed or enlarged enhancing lesions after CCRT with temozolomide for glioblastoma treatment. Online supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2013.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23771912     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  78 in total

1.  Loss of Pericytes in Radiation Necrosis after Glioblastoma Treatments.

Authors:  Soon-Tae Lee; Youngbeom Seo; Ji-Yeon Bae; Kon Chu; Jin Wook Kim; Seung Hong Choi; Tae Min Kim; Il Han Kim; Sung-Hye Park; Chul-Kee Park
Journal:  Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 5.590

Review 2.  Physiologic MRI for assessment of response to therapy and prognosis in glioblastoma.

Authors:  Mark S Shiroishi; Jerrold L Boxerman; Whitney B Pope
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 12.300

3.  Stretched-exponential model diffusion-weighted imaging as a potential imaging marker in preoperative grading and assessment of proliferative activity of gliomas.

Authors:  Xiaowei Chen; Jingjing Jiang; Nanxi Shen; Lingyun Zhao; Jiaxuan Zhang; Yuanyuan Qin; Shun Zhang; Li Li; Wenzhen Zhu
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 4.060

4.  Impact of imaging measurements on response assessment in glioblastoma clinical trials.

Authors:  David A Reardon; Karla V Ballman; Jan C Buckner; Susan M Chang; Benjamin M Ellingson
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 5.  Advanced MRI Techniques in the Monitoring of Treatment of Gliomas.

Authors:  Harpreet Hyare; Steffi Thust; Jeremy Rees
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Neurol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.598

Review 6.  MR-guided radiation therapy: transformative technology and its role in the central nervous system.

Authors:  Yue Cao; Chia-Lin Tseng; James M Balter; Feifei Teng; Hemant A Parmar; Arjun Sahgal
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 7.  Treatment-related changes in glioblastoma: a review on the controversies in response assessment criteria and the concepts of true progression, pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse and radionecrosis.

Authors:  P D Delgado-López; E Riñones-Mena; E M Corrales-García
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 8.  An Update on the Approach to the Imaging of Brain Tumors.

Authors:  Katherine M Mullen; Raymond Y Huang
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 5.081

9.  Spatial discrimination of glioblastoma and treatment effect with histologically-validated perfusion and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging metrics.

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

10.  Standard-b-value vs low-b-value DWI for differentiation of benign and malignant vertebral fractures: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhanpeng Luo; Li Litao; Suxi Gu; Xiaobo Luo; Dawei Li; Long Yu; Yuanzheng Ma
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.