Fatima Tensaouti1, Jonathan Khalifa2, Amélie Lusque3, Benjamin Plas4, Jean Albert Lotterie5,6, Isabelle Berry5,6, Anne Laprie5,2, Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan Moyal2,7, Vincent Lubrano5,4. 1. ToNIC, Toulouse NeuroImaging Center, Université de Toulouse, Inserm, UPS, Toulouse, France. tensaouti.f@chu-toulouse.fr. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Claudius Regaud Institute / Toulouse University Cancer Institute - Oncopole, Toulouse, France. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Claudius Regaud Institute / Toulouse University Cancer Institute - Oncopole, Toulouse, France. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 5. ToNIC, Toulouse NeuroImaging Center, Université de Toulouse, Inserm, UPS, Toulouse, France. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 7. Toulouse Center for Cancer Research (U1037), Inserm, Toulouse, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), with respect to the Macdonald criteria and changes in contrast-enhancement (CE) volume. Related variations in relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) were investigated. METHODS: Forty-three patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2010 were included. All underwent surgical resection, followed by temozolomide-based chemoradiation. MR images were retrospectively reviewed. Times to progression (TTPs) according to RANO criteria, Macdonald criteria and increased CE volume (CE-3D) were compared, and the percentage change in the 75th percentile of rCBV (rCBV75) was evaluated. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 22.7 months, a total of 39 patients had progressed according to RANO criteria, 32 according to CE-3D, and 42 according to Macdonald. Median TTPs were 6.4, 9.3, and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall agreement was 79.07% between RANO and CE-3D and 93.02% between RANO and Macdonald. The mean percentage change in rCBV75 at RANO progression onset was over 73% in 87.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our findings suggest that CE-3D criterion is not yet suitable to assess progression in routine clinical practice. Indeed, the accurate threshold is still not well defined. To date, in our opinion, early detection of disease progression by RANO combined with advanced MRI imaging techniques like MRI perfusion and diffusion remains the best way to assess disease progression. Further investigations that would examine the impact of treatment modifications after progression determined by different criteria on overall survival would be of great value.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), with respect to the Macdonald criteria and changes in contrast-enhancement (CE) volume. Related variations in relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) were investigated. METHODS: Forty-three patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2010 were included. All underwent surgical resection, followed by temozolomide-based chemoradiation. MR images were retrospectively reviewed. Times to progression (TTPs) according to RANO criteria, Macdonald criteria and increased CE volume (CE-3D) were compared, and the percentage change in the 75th percentile of rCBV (rCBV75) was evaluated. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 22.7 months, a total of 39 patients had progressed according to RANO criteria, 32 according to CE-3D, and 42 according to Macdonald. Median TTPs were 6.4, 9.3, and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall agreement was 79.07% between RANO and CE-3D and 93.02% between RANO and Macdonald. The mean percentage change in rCBV75 at RANO progression onset was over 73% in 87.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our findings suggest that CE-3D criterion is not yet suitable to assess progression in routine clinical practice. Indeed, the accurate threshold is still not well defined. To date, in our opinion, early detection of disease progression by RANO combined with advanced MRI imaging techniques like MRI perfusion and diffusion remains the best way to assess disease progression. Further investigations that would examine the impact of treatment modifications after progression determined by different criteria on overall survival would be of great value.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: L S Hu; L C Baxter; K A Smith; B G Feuerstein; J P Karis; J M Eschbacher; S W Coons; P Nakaji; R F Yeh; J Debbins; J E Heiserman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-12-04 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: Rahul N Sawlani; Jeffrey Raizer; Sandra W Horowitz; Wanyong Shin; Sean A Grimm; James P Chandler; Robert Levy; Christopher Getch; Timothy J Carroll Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin J van den Bent; Michael A Vogelbaum; Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M Visser; D M J Müller; R J M van Duijn; M Smits; N Verburg; E J Hendriks; R J A Nabuurs; J C J Bot; R S Eijgelaar; M Witte; M B van Herk; F Barkhof; P C de Witt Hamer; J C de Munck Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Johanna Heugenhauser; Malik Galijasevic; Stephanie Mangesius; Georg Goebel; Johanna Buchroithner; Friedrich Erhart; Josef Pichler; Georg Widhalm; Günther Stockhammer; Sarah Iglseder; Christian F Freyschlag; Stefan Oberndorfer; Karin Bordihn; Gord von Campe; Thomas Czech; Birgit Surböck; Tadeja Urbanic Purkart; Christine Marosi; Thomas Felzmann; Martha Nowosielski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-20 Impact factor: 6.639