C H Toh1, M Castillo2. 1. From the Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention (C.H.T.), Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan eldomtoh@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology (M.C.), University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The serial imaging changes describing the growth of glioblastomas from small to large tumors are seldom reported. Our aim was to classify the imaging patterns of early-stage glioblastomas and to define the order of appearance of different imaging patterns that occur during the growth of small glioblastomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records and preoperative MR imaging studies of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma between 2006 and 2013 were reviewed. Patients were included if their MR imaging studies showed early-stage glioblastomas, defined as small MR imaging lesions detected early in the course of the disease, demonstrating abnormal signal intensity but the absence of classic imaging findings of glioblastoma. Each lesion was reviewed by 2 neuroradiologists independently for location, signal intensity, involvement of GM and/or WM, and contrast-enhancement pattern on MR imaging. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 31 preoperative MR imaging studies met the inclusion criteria. Early-stage glioblastomas were classified into 3 types and were all hyperintense on FLAIR/T2-weighted images. Type I lesions predominantly involved cortical GM (n = 3). Type II (n = 12) and III (n = 16) lesions involved both cortical GM and subcortical WM. Focal contrast enhancement was present only in type III lesions at the gray-white junction. Interobserver agreement was excellent (κ = 0.95; P < .001) for lesion-type classification. Transformations of lesions from type I to type II and type II to type III were observed on follow-up MR imaging studies. The early-stage glioblastomas of 16 patients were pathologically confirmed after imaging progression to classic glioblastoma. CONCLUSIONS: Cortical lesions may be the earliest MR imaging-detectable abnormality in some human glioblastomas. These cortical tumors may progress to involve WM.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The serial imaging changes describing the growth of glioblastomas from small to large tumors are seldom reported. Our aim was to classify the imaging patterns of early-stage glioblastomas and to define the order of appearance of different imaging patterns that occur during the growth of small glioblastomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records and preoperative MR imaging studies of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma between 2006 and 2013 were reviewed. Patients were included if their MR imaging studies showed early-stage glioblastomas, defined as small MR imaging lesions detected early in the course of the disease, demonstrating abnormal signal intensity but the absence of classic imaging findings of glioblastoma. Each lesion was reviewed by 2 neuroradiologists independently for location, signal intensity, involvement of GM and/or WM, and contrast-enhancement pattern on MR imaging. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 31 preoperative MR imaging studies met the inclusion criteria. Early-stage glioblastomas were classified into 3 types and were all hyperintense on FLAIR/T2-weighted images. Type I lesions predominantly involved cortical GM (n = 3). Type II (n = 12) and III (n = 16) lesions involved both cortical GM and subcortical WM. Focal contrast enhancement was present only in type III lesions at the gray-white junction. Interobserver agreement was excellent (κ = 0.95; P < .001) for lesion-type classification. Transformations of lesions from type I to type II and type II to type III were observed on follow-up MR imaging studies. The early-stage glioblastomas of 16 patients were pathologically confirmed after imaging progression to classic glioblastoma. CONCLUSIONS: Cortical lesions may be the earliest MR imaging-detectable abnormality in some humanglioblastomas. These cortical tumors may progress to involve WM.
Authors: Chong Liu; Jonathan C Sage; Michael R Miller; Roel G W Verhaak; Simon Hippenmeyer; Hannes Vogel; Oded Foreman; Roderick T Bronson; Akiko Nishiyama; Liqun Luo; Hui Zong Journal: Cell Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Whitney B Pope; James Sayre; Alla Perlina; J Pablo Villablanca; Paul S Mischel; Timothy F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ramon F Barajas; Joanna J Phillips; Rupa Parvataneni; Annette Molinaro; Emma Essock-Burns; Gabriela Bourne; Andrew T Parsa; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Soonmee Cha; Susan M Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Aaron A Cohen-Gadol; Michael L DiLuna; Sergei I Bannykh; Joseph M Piepmeier; Dennis D Spencer Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: A Cianfoni; M Caulo; A Cerase; G Della Marca; C Falcone; G M Di Lella; S Gaudino; J Edwards; C Colosimo Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 3.528
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