S Wang1, M Martinez-Lage2, Y Sakai1, S Chawla3, S G Kim3, M Alonso-Basanta4, R A Lustig4, S Brem5, S Mohan1, R L Wolf1, A Desai6, H Poptani7. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (S.W., Y.S., S.M., R.L.W., H.P.). 2. Division of Neuroradiology, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (M.M.-L.). 3. Department of Radiology (S.C., S.G.K.), Center for Biomedical Imaging, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 4. Radiation Oncology (M.A.-B., R.A.L.,). 5. Neurosurgery (S.B.). 6. Hematology-Oncology (A.D.), Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. From the Departments of Radiology (S.W., Y.S., S.M., R.L.W., H.P.) Harish.Poptani@liverpool.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early assessment of treatment response is critical in patients with glioblastomas. A combination of DTI and DSC perfusion imaging parameters was evaluated to distinguish glioblastomas with true progression from mixed response and pseudoprogression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with glioblastomas exhibiting enhancing lesions within 6 months after completion of chemoradiation therapy were retrospectively studied. All patients underwent surgery after MR imaging and were histologically classified as having true progression (>75% tumor), mixed response (25%-75% tumor), or pseudoprogression (<25% tumor). Mean diffusivity, fractional anisotropy, linear anisotropy coefficient, planar anisotropy coefficient, spheric anisotropy coefficient, and maximum relative cerebral blood volume values were measured from the enhancing tissue. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the best model for classification of true progression from mixed response or pseudoprogression. RESULTS: Significantly elevated maximum relative cerebral blood volume, fractional anisotropy, linear anisotropy coefficient, and planar anisotropy coefficient and decreased spheric anisotropy coefficient were observed in true progression compared with pseudoprogression (P < .05). There were also significant differences in maximum relative cerebral blood volume, fractional anisotropy, planar anisotropy coefficient, and spheric anisotropy coefficient measurements between mixed response and true progression groups. The best model to distinguish true progression from non-true progression (pseudoprogression and mixed) consisted of fractional anisotropy, linear anisotropy coefficient, and maximum relative cerebral blood volume, resulting in an area under the curve of 0.905. This model also differentiated true progression from mixed response with an area under the curve of 0.901. A combination of fractional anisotropy and maximum relative cerebral blood volume differentiated pseudoprogression from nonpseudoprogression (true progression and mixed) with an area under the curve of 0.807. CONCLUSIONS: DTI and DSC perfusion imaging can improve accuracy in assessing treatment response and may aid in individualized treatment of patients with glioblastomas.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early assessment of treatment response is critical in patients with glioblastomas. A combination of DTI and DSC perfusion imaging parameters was evaluated to distinguish glioblastomas with true progression from mixed response and pseudoprogression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with glioblastomas exhibiting enhancing lesions within 6 months after completion of chemoradiation therapy were retrospectively studied. All patients underwent surgery after MR imaging and were histologically classified as having true progression (>75% tumor), mixed response (25%-75% tumor), or pseudoprogression (<25% tumor). Mean diffusivity, fractional anisotropy, linear anisotropy coefficient, planar anisotropy coefficient, spheric anisotropy coefficient, and maximum relative cerebral blood volume values were measured from the enhancing tissue. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the best model for classification of true progression from mixed response or pseudoprogression. RESULTS: Significantly elevated maximum relative cerebral blood volume, fractional anisotropy, linear anisotropy coefficient, and planar anisotropy coefficient and decreased spheric anisotropy coefficient were observed in true progression compared with pseudoprogression (P < .05). There were also significant differences in maximum relative cerebral blood volume, fractional anisotropy, planar anisotropy coefficient, and spheric anisotropy coefficient measurements between mixed response and true progression groups. The best model to distinguish true progression from non-true progression (pseudoprogression and mixed) consisted of fractional anisotropy, linear anisotropy coefficient, and maximum relative cerebral blood volume, resulting in an area under the curve of 0.905. This model also differentiated true progression from mixed response with an area under the curve of 0.901. A combination of fractional anisotropy and maximum relative cerebral blood volume differentiated pseudoprogression from nonpseudoprogression (true progression and mixed) with an area under the curve of 0.807. CONCLUSIONS: DTI and DSC perfusion imaging can improve accuracy in assessing treatment response and may aid in individualized treatment of patients with glioblastomas.
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: 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: W B Pope; A Lai; R Mehta; H J Kim; J Qiao; J R Young; X Xue; J Goldin; M S Brown; P L Nghiemphu; A Tran; T F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825
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: 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: Monica Anselmi; Alessia Catalucci; Valentina Felli; Valentina Vellucci; Alessandra Di Sibio; Giovanni Luca Gravina; Mario Di Staso; Ernesto Di Cesare; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2017-01-01
Authors: David A Hormuth; Jared A Weis; Stephanie L Barnes; Michael I Miga; Vito Quaranta; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 7.038