A J Prager1, N Martinez2, K Beal3, A Omuro4, Z Zhang5, R J Young6. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (A.J.P., R.J.Y.). 2. Neurology (N.M., A.O.). 3. Radiation Oncology (K.B.) the Brain Tumor Center (K.B., A.O., R.J.Y.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Neurology (N.M., A.O.) the Brain Tumor Center (K.B., A.O., R.J.Y.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Z.Z.). 6. From the Departments of Radiology (A.J.P., R.J.Y.) the Brain Tumor Center (K.B., A.O., R.J.Y.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. youngr@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Treatment-related changes and recurrent tumors often have overlapping features on conventional MR imaging. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of DWI and DSC perfusion imaging alone and in combination to differentiate treatment-related effects and recurrent high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 68 consecutive patients with high-grade gliomas treated by surgical resection followed by radiation therapy and temozolomide, who then developed increasing enhancing mass lesions indeterminate for treatment-related changes versus recurrent tumor. All lesions were diagnosed by histopathology at repeat surgical resection. ROI analysis was performed of the enhancing lesion on the ADC and DSC maps. Measurements made by a 2D ROI of the enhancing lesion on a single slice were recorded as ADCLesion and rCBVLesion, and measurements made by the most abnormal small fixed diameter ROI as ADCROI and rCBVROI. Statistical analysis was performed with Wilcoxon rank sum tests with P = .05. RESULTS: Ten of the 68 patients (14.7%) had treatment-related changes, while 58 patients (85.3%) had recurrent tumor only (n = 19) or recurrent tumor mixed with treatment effect (n = 39). DWI analysis showed higher ADCLesion in treatment-related changes than in recurrent tumor (P = .003). DSC analysis revealed lower relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV)Lesion and rCBVROI in treatment-related changes (P = .003 and P = .011, respectively). Subanalysis of patients with suspected pseudoprogression also revealed higher ADCLesion (P = .001) and lower rCBVLesion (P = .028) and rCBVROI (P = .032) in treatment-related changes. Applying a combined ADCLesion and rCBVLesion model did not outperform either the ADC or rCBV metric alone. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-related changes showed higher diffusion and lower perfusion than recurrent tumor. Similar correlations were found for patients with suspected pseudoprogression.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Treatment-related changes and recurrent tumors often have overlapping features on conventional MR imaging. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of DWI and DSC perfusion imaging alone and in combination to differentiate treatment-related effects and recurrent high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 68 consecutive patients with high-grade gliomas treated by surgical resection followed by radiation therapy and temozolomide, who then developed increasing enhancing mass lesions indeterminate for treatment-related changes versus recurrent tumor. All lesions were diagnosed by histopathology at repeat surgical resection. ROI analysis was performed of the enhancing lesion on the ADC and DSC maps. Measurements made by a 2D ROI of the enhancing lesion on a single slice were recorded as ADCLesion and rCBVLesion, and measurements made by the most abnormal small fixed diameter ROI as ADCROI and rCBVROI. Statistical analysis was performed with Wilcoxon rank sum tests with P = .05. RESULTS: Ten of the 68 patients (14.7%) had treatment-related changes, while 58 patients (85.3%) had recurrent tumor only (n = 19) or recurrent tumor mixed with treatment effect (n = 39). DWI analysis showed higher ADCLesion in treatment-related changes than in recurrent tumor (P = .003). DSC analysis revealed lower relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV)Lesion and rCBVROI in treatment-related changes (P = .003 and P = .011, respectively). Subanalysis of patients with suspected pseudoprogression also revealed higher ADCLesion (P = .001) and lower rCBVLesion (P = .028) and rCBVROI (P = .032) in treatment-related changes. Applying a combined ADCLesion and rCBVLesion model did not outperform either the ADC or rCBV metric alone. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-related changes showed higher diffusion and lower perfusion than recurrent tumor. Similar correlations were found for patients with suspected pseudoprogression.
Authors: Marc C Chamberlain; Michael J Glantz; Lisa Chalmers; Alixis Van Horn; Andrew E Sloan Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2006-08-31 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Bryan C Oh; Paul G Pagnini; Michael Y Wang; Charles Y Liu; Paul E Kim; Cheng Yu; Michael L J Apuzzo Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: L S Hu; L C Baxter; K A Smith; B G Feuerstein; J P Karis; J M Eschbacher; S W Coons; P Nakaji; R F Yeh; J Debbins; J E Heiserman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Meng Law; Robert J Young; James S Babb; Nicole Peccerelli; Sophie Chheang; Michael L Gruber; Douglas C Miller; John G Golfinos; David Zagzag; Glyn Johnson Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jennifer L Clarke; Fabio M Iwamoto; Joohee Sul; Katherine Panageas; Andrew B Lassman; Lisa M DeAngelis; Adília Hormigo; Craig P Nolan; Igor Gavrilovic; Sasan Karimi; Lauren E Abrey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Emerson L Gasparetto; Mikolaj A Pawlak; Sohil H Patel; Jason Huse; John H Woo; Jaroslaw Krejza; Myrna R Rosenfeld; Donald M O'Rourke; Robert Lustig; Elias R Melhem; Ronald L Wolf Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Yoshie Umemura; Diane Wang; Kyung K Peck; Jessica Flynn; Zhigang Zhang; Robin Fatovic; Erik S Anderson; Kathryn Beal; Alexander N Shoushtari; Thomas Kaley; Robert J Young Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: P Alcaide-Leon; J Cluceru; J M Lupo; T J Yu; T L Luks; T Tihan; N A Bush; J E Villanueva-Meyer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Jena; S Taneja; A Jha; N K Damesha; P Negi; G K Jadhav; S M Verma; S K Sogani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Amir Iranmahboob; Kyung K Peck; Nicole P Brennan; Sasan Karimi; Ryan Fisicaro; Bob Hou; Andrei I Holodny Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2016 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.486