Ra Gyoung Yoon1, Ho Sung Kim2, Dae Yoon Kim3, Gil Sun Hong4, Sang Joon Kim4. 1. Department of Radiology, Catholic Kwandong University International St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, 25, Simgok-ro 100 beon-gil, Seo-gu, Incheon, 404-834, Republic of Korea. yoonrg@hanmail.net. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea. radhskim@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Bundang Jesaeng Hospital, 20, Seohyeon-ro 180 beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-774, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic superiority of parametric response mapping of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCPR) for predicting glioblastoma treatment response, compared to single time point measurement. METHODS: Fifty post-treatment glioblastoma patients were enrolled. ADCPR was calculated from serial apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps acquired before and at the time of first detection of an enlarged contrast-enhancing lesion on voxel-by-voxel basis. The percentage-decrease in ADCPR and tenth percentile histogram cutoff value of ADC (ADC10) were compared at subsequent 3-month and 1-year follow-ups. RESULTS: The percentage-decrease in ADCPR was significantly higher in the progression group (mean = 33.2-38.3 %) than in the stable-response group (mean = 9.7 %) at 3 months follow-up (corrected p < 0.001 for both readers). ADCPR significantly improved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve from 0.67 to 0.88 (corrected p = 0.037) and from 0.70 to 0.92 (corrected p = 0.020) for both readers, respectively, compared to ADC10 at 3-month follow-up, but did not significantly improve at 1-year follow-up. The inter-reader agreement was higher for ADCPR than ADC10 (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.93 versus 0.86). CONCLUSION: Voxel-based ADCPR appears to be a superior imaging biomarker than ADC, particularly for predicting early tumour progression in patients with glioblastoma. KEY POINTS: • Treatment response pattern of glioblastoma was evaluated using voxel-based ADCPR and ADC10. • Voxel-based ADCPR was more accurate in predicting treatment response pattern than ADC10. • Inter-reader agreement was higher in ADCPR calculation than in ADC10 calculation. • Voxel-based ADCPR can be a predictor of early treatment response pattern for glioblastoma.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic superiority of parametric response mapping of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCPR) for predicting glioblastoma treatment response, compared to single time point measurement. METHODS: Fifty post-treatment glioblastomapatients were enrolled. ADCPR was calculated from serial apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps acquired before and at the time of first detection of an enlarged contrast-enhancing lesion on voxel-by-voxel basis. The percentage-decrease in ADCPR and tenth percentile histogram cutoff value of ADC (ADC10) were compared at subsequent 3-month and 1-year follow-ups. RESULTS: The percentage-decrease in ADCPR was significantly higher in the progression group (mean = 33.2-38.3 %) than in the stable-response group (mean = 9.7 %) at 3 months follow-up (corrected p < 0.001 for both readers). ADCPR significantly improved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve from 0.67 to 0.88 (corrected p = 0.037) and from 0.70 to 0.92 (corrected p = 0.020) for both readers, respectively, compared to ADC10 at 3-month follow-up, but did not significantly improve at 1-year follow-up. The inter-reader agreement was higher for ADCPR than ADC10 (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.93 versus 0.86). CONCLUSION: Voxel-based ADCPR appears to be a superior imaging biomarker than ADC, particularly for predicting early tumour progression in patients with glioblastoma. KEY POINTS: • Treatment response pattern of glioblastoma was evaluated using voxel-based ADCPR and ADC10. • Voxel-based ADCPR was more accurate in predicting treatment response pattern than ADC10. • Inter-reader agreement was higher in ADCPR calculation than in ADC10 calculation. • Voxel-based ADCPR can be a predictor of early treatment response pattern for glioblastoma.
Entities:
Keywords:
Brain; Chemoradiotherapy; Glioblastoma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Response evaluation
Authors: Benjamin M Ellingson; Timothy F Cloughesy; Taryar Zaw; Albert Lai; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Robert Harris; Shadi Lalezari; Naveed Wagle; Kourosh M Naeini; Jose Carrillo; Linda M Liau; Whitney B Pope Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-01-22 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin M Ellingson; Timothy F Cloughesy; Albert Lai; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Whitney B Pope Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christina Tsien; Craig J Galbán; Thomas L Chenevert; Timothy D Johnson; Daniel A Hamstra; Pia C Sundgren; Larry Junck; Charles R Meyer; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Theodore Lawrence; Brian D Ross Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Thomas L Chenevert; Bradford A Moffat; Timothy D Johnson; Charles R Meyer; Suresh K Mukherji; Douglas J Quint; Stephen S Gebarski; Xiaoying Fan; Christina I Tsien; Theodore S Lawrence; Larry Junck; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-11-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: R G Henry; D B Vigneron; N J Fischbein; P E Grant; M R Day; S M Noworolski; J M Star-Lack; L L Wald; W P Dillon; S M Chang; S J Nelson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Pia C Sundgren; Xiaoying Fan; Patrick Weybright; Robert C Welsh; Ruth C Carlos; Myria Petrou; Paul E McKeever; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-09-18 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Joonmi Oh; Roland G Henry; Andrea Pirzkall; Ying Lu; Xiaojuan Li; Isabelle Catalaa; Susan Chang; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Craig J Galbán; Charles R Meyer; Timothy D Johnson; Pia C Sundgren; Christina Tsien; Theodore S Lawrence; Larry Junck; David J Ross; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; María Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Patricia Figueiredo; Gilbert Hangel; Vera C Keil; Ruben E Nechifor; Frank Riemer; Kathleen M Schmainda; Esther A H Warnert; Evita C Wiegers; Thomas C Booth Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: S C Thust; S Heiland; A Falini; H R Jäger; A D Waldman; P C Sundgren; C Godi; V K Katsaros; A Ramos; N Bargallo; M W Vernooij; T Yousry; M Bendszus; M Smits Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Samuel A Bobholz; Allison K Lowman; Alexander Barrington; Michael Brehler; Sean McGarry; Elizabeth J Cochran; Jennifer Connelly; Wade M Mueller; Mohit Agarwal; Darren O'Neill; Andrew S Nencka; Anjishnu Banerjee; Peter S LaViolette Journal: Tomography Date: 2020-06