Roh-Eul Yoo1, Seung Hong Choi2,3,4, Tae Min Kim5, Chul-Kee Park6, Sung-Hye Park7, Jae-Kyung Won7, Il Han Kim8, Soon Tae Lee9, Hye Jeong Choi1, Sung-Hye You1, Koung Mi Kang1, Tae Jin Yun1, Ji-Hoon Kim1, Chul-Ho Sohn1. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28, Yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, 110-744, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28, Yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, 110-744, Seoul, Korea. verocay@snuh.org. 3. Center for Nanoparticle Research, Institute for Basic Science, and School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University, 151-742, Seoul, Korea. verocay@snuh.org. 4. School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. verocay@snuh.org. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 7. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 9. Department of Neurology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively explore the value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in predicting the progression of enhancing lesions persisting after standard treatment in patients with surgically resected glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: Forty-seven GBM patients, who underwent near-total tumorectomy followed by concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) with temozolomide (TMZ) between May 2014 and February 2016, were enrolled. Twenty-four patients were finally analyzed for measurable enhancing lesions persisting after standard treatment. DCE-MRI parameters were calculated at enhancing lesions. Mann-Whitney U tests and multivariable stepwise logistic regression were used to compare parameters between progression (n = 16) and non-progression (n = 8) groups. RESULTS: Mean Ktrans and ve were significantly lower in progression than in non-progression (P = 0.037 and P = 0.037, respectively). The 5th percentile of the cumulative Ktrans histogram was also significantly lower in the progression than in non-progression group (P = 0.017). Mean ve was the only independent predictor of progression (P = 0.007), with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 63%, and an overall accuracy of 88% at a cut-off value of 0.873. CONCLUSIONS: DCE-MRI may help predict the progression of enhancing lesions persisting after the completion of standard treatment in patients with surgically resected GBM, with mean ve serving as an independent predictor of progression. KEY POINTS: • Enhancing lesions may persist after standard treatment in GBM patients. • DCE-MRI may help predict the progression of the enhancing lesions. • Mean K trans and v e were lower in progression than in non-progression group. • DCE-MRI may help identify patients requiring close follow-up after standard treatment. • DCE-MRI may help plan treatment strategies for GBM patients.
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively explore the value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in predicting the progression of enhancing lesions persisting after standard treatment in patients with surgically resected glioblastoma (GBM). METHODS: Forty-seven GBM patients, who underwent near-total tumorectomy followed by concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) with temozolomide (TMZ) between May 2014 and February 2016, were enrolled. Twenty-four patients were finally analyzed for measurable enhancing lesions persisting after standard treatment. DCE-MRI parameters were calculated at enhancing lesions. Mann-Whitney U tests and multivariable stepwise logistic regression were used to compare parameters between progression (n = 16) and non-progression (n = 8) groups. RESULTS: Mean Ktrans and ve were significantly lower in progression than in non-progression (P = 0.037 and P = 0.037, respectively). The 5th percentile of the cumulative Ktrans histogram was also significantly lower in the progression than in non-progression group (P = 0.017). Mean ve was the only independent predictor of progression (P = 0.007), with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 63%, and an overall accuracy of 88% at a cut-off value of 0.873. CONCLUSIONS:DCE-MRI may help predict the progression of enhancing lesions persisting after the completion of standard treatment in patients with surgically resected GBM, with mean ve serving as an independent predictor of progression. KEY POINTS: • Enhancing lesions may persist after standard treatment in GBM patients. • DCE-MRI may help predict the progression of the enhancing lesions. • Mean K trans and v e were lower in progression than in non-progression group. • DCE-MRI may help identify patients requiring close follow-up after standard treatment. • DCE-MRI may help plan treatment strategies for GBM patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemoradiotherapy; Glioblastoma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Perfusion; Progression
Authors: Rodolfo Perini; Regine Choe; Arjun G Yodh; Chandra Sehgal; Chaitanya R Divgi; Mark A Rosen Journal: Cancer Metastasis Rev Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 9.264
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Erik O Pettersen; Peter Ebbesen; Roben G Gieling; Kaye J Williams; Ludwig Dubois; Philippe Lambin; Carol Ward; James Meehan; Ian H Kunkler; Simon P Langdon; Anne H Ree; Kjersti Flatmark; Heidi Lyng; Maria J Calzada; Luis Del Peso; Manuel O Landazuri; Agnes Görlach; Hubert Flamm; Jochen Kieninger; Gerald Urban; Andreas Weltin; Dean C Singleton; Syed Haider; Francesca M Buffa; Adrian L Harris; Andrea Scozzafava; Claudiu T Supuran; Isabella Moser; Gerhard Jobst; Morten Busk; Kasper Toustrup; Jens Overgaard; Jan Alsner; Jacques Pouyssegur; Johanna Chiche; Nathalie Mazure; Ibtissam Marchiq; Scott Parks; Afshan Ahmed; Margaret Ashcroft; Silvia Pastorekova; Yihai Cao; Kasper M Rouschop; Brad G Wouters; Marianne Koritzinsky; Hilda Mujcic; Dan Cojocari Journal: J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 5.051
Authors: Oscar R Colegio; Ngoc-Quynh Chu; Alison L Szabo; Thach Chu; Anne Marie Rhebergen; Vikram Jairam; Nika Cyrus; Carolyn E Brokowski; Stephanie C Eisenbarth; Gillian M Phillips; Gary W Cline; Andrew J Phillips; Ruslan Medzhitov Journal: Nature Date: 2014-07-13 Impact factor: 69.504
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: G M Conte; L Altabella; A Castellano; V Cuccarini; A Bizzi; M Grimaldi; A Costa; M Caulo; A Falini; N Anzalone Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: I Hwang; S H Choi; C-K Park; T M Kim; S-H Park; J K Won; I H Kim; S-T Lee; R-E Yoo; K M Kang; T J Yun; J-H Kim; C-H Sohn Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Hee Soo Kim; Se Lee Kwon; Seung Hong Choi; Inpyeong Hwang; Tae Min Kim; Chul-Kee Park; Sung-Hye Park; Jae-Kyung Won; Il Han Kim; Soon Tae Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robert H Press; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; James M Mountz; Brenda F Kurland; Richard L Wahl; Ella F Jones; Nola M Hylton; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Robert J Nordstrom; Lori Henderson; Karen A Kurdziel; Bhadrasain Vikram; Michael A Jacobs; Matthias Holdhoff; Edward Taylor; David A Jaffray; Lawrence H Schwartz; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan; Hannah M Linden; Philippe Lambin; Thomas J Dilling; Daniel L Rubin; Lubomir Hadjiiski; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: H J Choi; S H Choi; S-H You; R-E Yoo; K M Kang; T J Yun; J-H Kim; C-H Sohn; C-K Park; S-H Park Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 3.825