Eric Nyberg1, Justin Honce2, Bette K Kleinschmidt-DeMasters3, Brian Shukri2, Sarah Kreidler4, Lidia Nagae2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado Hospital, USA Eric.nyberg@ucdenver.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado Hospital, USA. 3. Departments of Pathology, Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Colorado Hospital, USA. 4. Neptune and Company Inc, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standard of care for high-grade gliomas (HGGs) includes surgical debulking and adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation. Patients under treatment require frequent clinical and imaging monitoring for therapy modulation. Differentiating tumor progression from treatment-related changes can be challenging on conventional MRI, resulting in delayed recognition of tumor progression. Arterial spin labeling (ASL) may be more sensitive for tumor progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASL and associated conventional MR images obtained in patients previously treated for HGGs and before biopsy or re-resection were reviewed by three neuroradiologists who were blinded to the histopathologic results. Regions of interest (ROIs) of greatest perfusion were chosen by consensus, and mirror-image contralateral ROIs were also placed. Sensitivity of ASL for tumor progression was compared with those of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1W-CE) and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) images using McNemar's test. We tested for an association between cerebral blood flow (CBF) and apparent diffusion correlation (ADC) using a Hotelling-Lawley trace. Finally, we used a Pearson's analysis to test for a correlation between CBF and percentage of tumor within each resection. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were studied. ASL demonstrated hyperperfusion in all cases with mean CBF ratio 3.37 (±1.71). T1W-CE and FLAIR images were positive in 15 (p = 0.0233) and 16 (p = 0.0412) cases, respectively. There was no association between ADC and CBF (p = 0.687). There was a correlation between CBF and percentage of tumor (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: ASL may be more sensitive than conventional MR sequences for the detection of tumor progression in patients treated for HGGs.
BACKGROUND: Standard of care for high-grade gliomas (HGGs) includes surgical debulking and adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation. Patients under treatment require frequent clinical and imaging monitoring for therapy modulation. Differentiating tumor progression from treatment-related changes can be challenging on conventional MRI, resulting in delayed recognition of tumor progression. Arterial spin labeling (ASL) may be more sensitive for tumor progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASL and associated conventional MR images obtained in patients previously treated for HGGs and before biopsy or re-resection were reviewed by three neuroradiologists who were blinded to the histopathologic results. Regions of interest (ROIs) of greatest perfusion were chosen by consensus, and mirror-image contralateral ROIs were also placed. Sensitivity of ASL for tumor progression was compared with those of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1W-CE) and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) images using McNemar's test. We tested for an association between cerebral blood flow (CBF) and apparent diffusion correlation (ADC) using a Hotelling-Lawley trace. Finally, we used a Pearson's analysis to test for a correlation between CBF and percentage of tumor within each resection. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were studied. ASL demonstrated hyperperfusion in all cases with mean CBF ratio 3.37 (±1.71). T1W-CE and FLAIR images were positive in 15 (p = 0.0233) and 16 (p = 0.0412) cases, respectively. There was no association between ADC and CBF (p = 0.687). There was a correlation between CBF and percentage of tumor (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: ASL may be more sensitive than conventional MR sequences for the detection of tumor progression in patients treated for HGGs.
Authors: Mark E Mullins; Glenn D Barest; Pamela W Schaefer; Fred H Hochberg; R Gilberto Gonzalez; Michael H Lev Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Katerina Deike; Benedikt Wiestler; Markus Graf; Caroline Reimer; Ralf O Floca; Philipp Bäumer; Philipp Kickingereder; Sabine Heiland; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Wolfgang Wick; Martin Bendszus; Alexander Radbruch Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Luc Bauchet; Faith G Davis; Isabelle Deltour; James L Fisher; Chelsea Eastman Langer; Melike Pekmezci; Judith A Schwartzbaum; Michelle C Turner; Kyle M Walsh; Margaret R Wrensch; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: J Cha; S T Kim; H-J Kim; B-J Kim; Y K Kim; J Y Lee; P Jeon; K H Kim; D-S Kong; D-H Nam Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Yan Li; Janine M Lupo; Mei-Yin Polley; Jason C Crane; Wei Bian; Soonmee Cha; Susan Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Nasuda Danchaivijitr; Adam D Waldman; Daniel J Tozer; Christopher E Benton; Gisele Brasil Caseiras; Paul S Tofts; Jeremy H Rees; H Rolf Jäger Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alexander Radbruch; Lukas D Weberling; Pascal J Kieslich; Johanna Hepp; Philipp Kickingereder; Wolfgang Wick; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Martin Bendszus Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Vittorio Stumpo; Lelio Guida; Jacopo Bellomo; Christiaan Hendrik Bas Van Niftrik; Martina Sebök; Moncef Berhouma; Andrea Bink; Michael Weller; Zsolt Kulcsar; Luca Regli; Jorn Fierstra Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 6.639