Alexander Radbruch1, Joachim Fladt1, Philipp Kickingereder1, Benedikt Wiestler1, Martha Nowosielski1, Philipp Bäumer1, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer1, Antje Wick1, Sabine Heiland1, Wolfgang Wick1, Martin Bendszus1. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany (A.R., J.F., P.K., P.B., S.H., M.B.); Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany (A.R., H.-P.S.); Department of Neurooncology, Neurology Clinic and National Center for Tumor Diseases, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany (B.W., A.W., W.W.); German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Clinical Cooperation Unit Neurooncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany (B.W., A.W., W.W.); Department of Neurology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria (M.N.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria, new enhancement within the radiation field on contrast enhanced T1-weighted images within 12 weeks after completion of radiotherapy should not qualify for progressive disease, since up to 50% of these cases may be pseudoprogression (PsP). To validate this concept, we assessed incidence and overall survival (OS) of patients with suspected and confirmed PsP dependent on different time intervals and definitions of PsP. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and an enhancement increase of at least 25% after completion of standard radiochemotherapy at month 1, 4, 7, or 10 were eligible. Based on the development of the enhancement in follow-up examinations, patients were categorized as either PsP (subgrouped as complete resolution/decrease >50% and decrease <50%/stable) or true progression. RESULTS: Out of 548 patients, 79 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these 79 patients, 9 (11.4%) showed PsP (6/45 patients at 1 month, 2/17 at 4 months, 1/9 at 7 months, and 0/8 at 10 months). Complete resolution of the enhancement was found in 1, decrease >50% in 3, decrease <50% in 2, and stable enhancement in 3 patients with PsP. Patients with PsP showed a significantly longer OS (P < .012). No difference in OS was found among PsP subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This series challenges the current concept of PsP. Even though we could confirm a prolonged OS of patients with PsP, the incidence of PsP was lower than reported previously and extended beyond 12 weeks.
BACKGROUND: According to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria, new enhancement within the radiation field on contrast enhanced T1-weighted images within 12 weeks after completion of radiotherapy should not qualify for progressive disease, since up to 50% of these cases may be pseudoprogression (PsP). To validate this concept, we assessed incidence and overall survival (OS) of patients with suspected and confirmed PsP dependent on different time intervals and definitions of PsP. METHODS:Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and an enhancement increase of at least 25% after completion of standard radiochemotherapy at month 1, 4, 7, or 10 were eligible. Based on the development of the enhancement in follow-up examinations, patients were categorized as either PsP (subgrouped as complete resolution/decrease >50% and decrease <50%/stable) or true progression. RESULTS: Out of 548 patients, 79 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these 79 patients, 9 (11.4%) showed PsP (6/45 patients at 1 month, 2/17 at 4 months, 1/9 at 7 months, and 0/8 at 10 months). Complete resolution of the enhancement was found in 1, decrease >50% in 3, decrease <50% in 2, and stable enhancement in 3 patients with PsP. Patients with PsP showed a significantly longer OS (P < .012). No difference in OS was found among PsP subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This series challenges the current concept of PsP. Even though we could confirm a prolonged OS of patients with PsP, the incidence of PsP was lower than reported previously and extended beyond 12 weeks.
Authors: L C Hygino da Cruz; I Rodriguez; R C Domingues; E L Gasparetto; A G Sorensen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-03-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Seymur Gahramanov; Ahmed M Raslan; Leslie L Muldoon; Bronwyn E Hamilton; William D Rooney; Csanad G Varallyay; Jeffrey M Njus; Marianne Haluska; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Olivier L Chinot; Wolfgang Wick; Warren Mason; Roger Henriksson; Frank Saran; Ryo Nishikawa; Antoine F Carpentier; Khe Hoang-Xuan; Petr Kavan; Dana Cernea; Alba A Brandes; Magalie Hilton; Lauren Abrey; Timothy Cloughesy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; Michael Weller; Bogdana Suchorska; Norbert Galldiks; Riccardo Soffietti; Michelle M Kim; Christian la Fougère; Whitney Pope; Ian Law; Javier Arbizu; Marc C Chamberlain; Michael Vogelbaum; Ben M Ellingson; Joerg C Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Cornelius Deuschl; Christoph Moenninghoff; Sophia Goericke; Julian Kirchner; Susanne Köppen; Ina Binse; Thorsten D Poeppel; Harald H Quick; Michael Forsting; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Joerg Hense; Marc Schlamann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lindsay S Rowe; John A Butman; Megan Mackey; Joanna H Shih; Theresa Cooley-Zgela; Holly Ning; Mark R Gilbert; DeeDee K Smart; Kevin Camphausen; Andra V Krauze Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.130