B Amini1, C B Beaman2, J E Madewell3, P K Allen4, L D Rhines5, C E Tatsui5, N M Tannir6, J Li7, P D Brown7, A J Ghia7. 1. From the Departments of Diagnostic Radiology (B.A., J.E.M.) bamini@mdanderson.org. 2. The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (C.B.B.), Houston, Texas. 3. From the Departments of Diagnostic Radiology (B.A., J.E.M.). 4. Biostatistics (P.K.A.). 5. Neurosurgery (L.D.R., C.E.T.). 6. Genitourinary Medical Oncology (N.M.T.). 7. Radiation Oncology (J.L., P.D.B., A.J.G.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Osseous pseudoprogression on MR imaging can mimic true progression in lesions treated with spine stereotactic radiosurgery. Our aim was to describe the prevalence and time course of osseous pseudoprogression to assist radiologists in the assessment of patients after spine stereotactic radiosurgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A secondary analysis of 2 prospective trials was performed. MRIs before and after spine stereotactic radiosurgery were assessed for response. "Osseous pseudoprogression" was defined as transient growth in signal abnormality centered at the lesion with a sustained decline on follow-up MR imaging that was not attributable to chemotherapy. RESULTS: From the initial set of 223 patients, 37 lesions in 36 patients met the inclusion criteria and were selected for secondary analysis. Five of the 37 lesions (14%) demonstrated osseous pseudoprogression, and 9 demonstrated progressive disease. There was a significant association between single-fraction therapy and the development of osseous pseudoprogression (P = .01), and there was a significant difference in osseous pseudoprogression-free survival between single- and multifraction regimens (P = .005). In lesions demonstrating osseous pseudoprogression, time-to-peak size occurred between 9.7 and 24.4 weeks after spine stereotactic radiosurgery (mean, 13.9 weeks; 95% CI, 8.6-19.1 weeks). The peak lesion size was between 4 and 10 mm larger than baseline. Most lesions returned to baseline size between 23 and 52.4 weeks following spine stereotactic radiosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: Progression on MR imaging performed between 3 and 6 months following spine stereotactic radiosurgery should be treated with caution because osseous pseudoprogression may be seen in more than one-third of these lesions. Single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery may be associated with osseous pseudoprogression. The possibility of osseous pseudoprogression should be incorporated into the prospective criteria for assessment of local control following spine stereotactic radiosurgery.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Osseous pseudoprogression on MR imaging can mimic true progression in lesions treated with spine stereotactic radiosurgery. Our aim was to describe the prevalence and time course of osseous pseudoprogression to assist radiologists in the assessment of patients after spine stereotactic radiosurgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A secondary analysis of 2 prospective trials was performed. MRIs before and after spine stereotactic radiosurgery were assessed for response. "Osseous pseudoprogression" was defined as transient growth in signal abnormality centered at the lesion with a sustained decline on follow-up MR imaging that was not attributable to chemotherapy. RESULTS: From the initial set of 223 patients, 37 lesions in 36 patients met the inclusion criteria and were selected for secondary analysis. Five of the 37 lesions (14%) demonstrated osseous pseudoprogression, and 9 demonstrated progressive disease. There was a significant association between single-fraction therapy and the development of osseous pseudoprogression (P = .01), and there was a significant difference in osseous pseudoprogression-free survival between single- and multifraction regimens (P = .005). In lesions demonstrating osseous pseudoprogression, time-to-peak size occurred between 9.7 and 24.4 weeks after spine stereotactic radiosurgery (mean, 13.9 weeks; 95% CI, 8.6-19.1 weeks). The peak lesion size was between 4 and 10 mm larger than baseline. Most lesions returned to baseline size between 23 and 52.4 weeks following spine stereotactic radiosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: Progression on MR imaging performed between 3 and 6 months following spine stereotactic radiosurgery should be treated with caution because osseous pseudoprogression may be seen in more than one-third of these lesions. Single-fraction spine stereotactic radiosurgery may be associated with osseous pseudoprogression. The possibility of osseous pseudoprogression should be incorporated into the prospective criteria for assessment of local control following spine stereotactic radiosurgery.
Authors: Kitty Huang; Max Dahele; Suresh Senan; Matthias Guckenberger; George B Rodrigues; Aaron Ward; R Gabriel Boldt; David A Palma Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Haesun Choi; Chuslip Charnsangavej; Silvana C Faria; Homer A Macapinlac; Michael A Burgess; Shreyaskumar R Patel; Lei L Chen; Donald A Podoloff; Robert S Benjamin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric L Chang; Almon S Shiu; Ming-Fwu Lii; Laurence D Rhines; Ehud Mendel; Anita Mahajan; Jeffrey S Weinberg; Leni A Mathews; Barry W Brown; Moshe H Maor; James D Cox Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Almon S Shiu; Eric L Chang; Jin-Song Ye; MingFwu Lii; Laurence D Rhines; Ehud Mendel; Jeffrey Weinberg; Sanjay Singh; Moshe H Maor; Radhe Mohan; James D Cox Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mahmud Mossa-Basha; Peter C Gerszten; Sten Myrehaug; Nina A Mayr; William Tc Yuh; Pejman Jabehdar Maralani; Arjun Sahgal; Simon S Lo Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Joe H Chang; John H Shin; Yoshiya J Yamada; Addisu Mesfin; Michael G Fehlings; Laurence D Rhines; Arjun Sahgal Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Samuel Finkelstein; Srinivas Raman; Joanne Van Der Velden; Liying Zhang; Carolyn Tan; Amanpreet Dhillon; Frances Tonolete; Nicholas Chiu; Linda Probyn; Rachel McDonald; Arjun Sahgal; Edward Chow; Lee Chin Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-01
Authors: Dora Correia; Barbara Moullet; Jennifer Cullmann; Rafael Heiss; Ekin Ermiş; Daniel M Aebersold; Hossein Hemmatazad Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 3.481