Bo Ma1,2,3, Jaishri O Blakeley4, Xiaohua Hong1, Hongyan Zhang5, Shanshan Jiang1, Lindsay Blair1,4, Yi Zhang1, Hye-Young Heo1, Mingzhi Zhang2, Peter C M van Zijl1,6, Jinyuan Zhou1,6. 1. Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, PR China. 3. Department of Radiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, PR China. 4. Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. F.M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess amide proton transfer-weighted (APTW) imaging features in patients with malignant gliomas after chemoradiation and the diagnostic performance of APT imaging for distinguishing true progression from pseudoprogression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval by the Institutional Review Board, 32 patients with clinically suspected tumor progression in the first 3 months after chemoradiation were enrolled and scanned at 3T. Longitudinal routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) changes and medical records were assessed to confirm true progression versus pseudoprogression. True progression was defined as lesions progressing on serial imaging over 6 months, and pseudoprogression was defined as lesions stabilizing or regressing without intervention. The APTWmean and APTWmax signals were obtained from three to five regions of interests for each patient and compared between the true progression and pseudoprogression groups. The diagnostic performance was assessed with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: The true progression was associated with APTW hyperintensity (APTWmean = 2.75% ± 0.42%), while pseudoprogression was associated with APTW isointensity to mild hyperintensity (APTWmean = 1.56% ± 0.42%). The APTW signal intensities were significantly higher in the true progression group (n = 20) than in the pseudoprogression group (P < 0.001; n = 12). The cutoff APTWmean and APTWmax intensity values to distinguish between true progression and pseudoprogression were 2.42% (with a sensitivity of 85.0% and a specificity of 100%) and 2.54% (with a sensitivity of 95.0% and a specificity of 91.7%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The APTW-MRI signal is a valuable imaging biomarker for distinguishing pseudoprogression from true progression in glioma patients. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:456-462.
PURPOSE: To assess amide proton transfer-weighted (APTW) imaging features in patients with malignant gliomas after chemoradiation and the diagnostic performance of APT imaging for distinguishing true progression from pseudoprogression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval by the Institutional Review Board, 32 patients with clinically suspected tumor progression in the first 3 months after chemoradiation were enrolled and scanned at 3T. Longitudinal routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) changes and medical records were assessed to confirm true progression versus pseudoprogression. True progression was defined as lesions progressing on serial imaging over 6 months, and pseudoprogression was defined as lesions stabilizing or regressing without intervention. The APTWmean and APTWmax signals were obtained from three to five regions of interests for each patient and compared between the true progression and pseudoprogression groups. The diagnostic performance was assessed with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: The true progression was associated with APTW hyperintensity (APTWmean = 2.75% ± 0.42%), while pseudoprogression was associated with APTW isointensity to mild hyperintensity (APTWmean = 1.56% ± 0.42%). The APTW signal intensities were significantly higher in the true progression group (n = 20) than in the pseudoprogression group (P < 0.001; n = 12). The cutoff APTWmean and APTWmax intensity values to distinguish between true progression and pseudoprogression were 2.42% (with a sensitivity of 85.0% and a specificity of 100%) and 2.54% (with a sensitivity of 95.0% and a specificity of 91.7%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The APTW-MRI signal is a valuable imaging biomarker for distinguishing pseudoprogression from true progression in gliomapatients. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:456-462.
Authors: Hee Ho Chu; Seung Hong Choi; Inseon Ryoo; Soo Chin Kim; Jeong A Yeom; Hwaseon Shin; Seung Chai Jung; A Leum Lee; Tae Jin Yoon; Tae Min Kim; Se-Hoon Lee; Chul-Kee Park; Ji-Hoon Kim; Chul-Ho Sohn; Sung-Hye Park; Il Han Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Zhongliang Zu; Vaibhav A Janve; Junzhong Xu; Mark D Does; John C Gore; Daniel F Gochberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Adrienne N Dula; Lori R Arlinghaus; Richard D Dortch; Blake E Dewey; Jennifer G Whisenant; Gregory D Ayers; Thomas E Yankeelov; Seth A Smith Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Susan K Hobbs; Gongyi Shi; Ron Homer; Griff Harsh; Scott W Atlas; Mark D Bednarski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Graeme F Woodworth; Tomas Garzon-Muvdi; Xiaobu Ye; Jaishri O Blakeley; Jon D Weingart; Peter C Burger Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2013-05-11 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Kyle M Jones; Edward A Randtke; Eriko S Yoshimaru; Christine M Howison; Pavani Chalasani; Robert R Klein; Setsuko K Chambers; Phillip H Kuo; Mark D Pagel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Shanshan Jiang; Charles G Eberhart; Yi Zhang; Hye-Young Heo; Zhibo Wen; Lindsay Blair; Huamin Qin; Michael Lim; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa; Jon D Weingart; Peter B Barker; Martin G Pomper; John Laterra; Peter C M van Zijl; Jaishri O Blakeley; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Ouri Cohen; Shuning Huang; Michael T McMahon; Matthew S Rosen; Christian T Farrar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-13 Impact factor: 4.668