Literature DB >> 29074633

Comparison between the Prebolus T1 Measurement and the Fixed T1 Value in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR Imaging for the Differentiation of True Progression from Pseudoprogression in Glioblastoma Treated with Concurrent Radiation Therapy and Temozolomide Chemotherapy.

J G Nam1, K M Kang2, S H Choi1,3,4, W H Lim1, R-E Yoo1, J-H Kim1, T J Yun1, C-H Sohn1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Glioblastoma is the most common primary brain malignancy and differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression is clinically important. Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced pharmacokinetic parameters using the fixed T1 and measured T1 on differentiating true from pseudoprogression of glioblastoma after chemoradiation with temozolomide.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 37 patients with histopathologically confirmed glioblastoma with new enhancing lesions after temozolomide chemoradiation defined as true progression (n = 15) or pseudoprogression (n = 22). Dynamic contrast-enhanced pharmacokinetic parameters, including the volume transfer constant, the rate transfer constant, the blood plasma volume per unit volume, and the extravascular extracellular space per unit volume, were calculated by using both the fixed T1 of 1000 ms and measured T1 by using the multiple flip-angle method. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility was assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Dynamic contrast-enhanced pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the 2 groups by using univariate and multivariate analysis. The diagnostic performance was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic analysis and leave-one-out cross validation.
RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficients of all the parameters from both T1 values were fair to excellent (0.689-0.999). The volume transfer constant and rate transfer constant from the fixed T1 were significantly higher in patients with true progression (P = .048 and .010, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that the rate transfer constant from the fixed T1 was the only independent variable (OR, 1.77 × 105) and showed substantial diagnostic power on receiver operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve, 0.752; P = .002). The sensitivity and specificity on leave-one-out cross validation were 73.3% (11/15) and 59.1% (13/20), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The dynamic contrast-enhanced parameter of rate transfer constant from the fixed T1 acted as a preferable marker to differentiate true progression from pseudoprogression.
© 2017 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29074633      PMCID: PMC7963756          DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5417

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  34 in total

1.  Determining and optimizing the precision of quantitative measurements of perfusion from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Brian M Dale; John A Jesberger; Jonathan S Lewin; Claudia M Hillenbrand; Jeffrey L Duerk
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 2.  Mechanisms of radiation injury to the central nervous system: implications for neuroprotection.

Authors:  C Shun Wong; Albert J Van der Kogel
Journal:  Mol Interv       Date:  2004-10

3.  Dynamic contrast enhanced T1 MRI perfusion differentiates pseudoprogression from recurrent glioblastoma.

Authors:  Alissa A Thomas; Julio Arevalo-Perez; Thomas Kaley; John Lyo; Kyung K Peck; Weiji Shi; Zhigang Zhang; Robert J Young
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 4.130

4.  Automatic selection of arterial input function using cluster analysis.

Authors:  Kim Mouridsen; Søren Christensen; Louise Gyldensted; Leif Ostergaard
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.668

5.  The impact of reliable prebolus T 1 measurements or a fixed T 1 value in the assessment of glioma patients with dynamic contrast enhancing MRI.

Authors:  Anna Tietze; Kim Mouridsen; Irene Klærke Mikkelsen
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  Glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy: differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression with quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Tae Jin Yun; Chul-Kee Park; Tae Min Kim; Se-Hoon Lee; Ji-Hoon Kim; Chul-Ho Sohn; Sung-Hye Park; Il Han Kim; Seung Hong Choi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Reproducibility of reference tissue quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced data: comparison with a fixed vascular input function.

Authors:  S Walker-Samuel; C C Parker; M O Leach; D J Collins
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Differentiation of true-progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with radiation therapy and concomitant temozolomide by GLCM texture analysis of conventional MRI.

Authors:  Xin Chen; Xinhua Wei; Zhongping Zhang; Ruimeng Yang; Yanjie Zhu; Xinqing Jiang
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 1.605

9.  Correlation of MR imaging-determined cerebral blood volume maps with histologic and angiographic determination of vascularity of gliomas.

Authors:  T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; T Hirai; T Okuda; Y Shigematsu; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Ushio; M Takahashi
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Assessment of liver fibrosis by variable flip angle T1 mapping at 3.0T.

Authors:  Zhiming Li; Jihong Sun; Xi Hu; Ning Huang; Guocan Han; Lumin Chen; Yurong Zhou; Weixian Bai; Xiaoming Yang
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 4.813

View more
  10 in total

1.  Comparison of T1 mapping and fixed T1 method for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion in brain gliomas.

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

2.  Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR Imaging of Nonenhancing T2 High-Signal-Intensity Lesions in Baseline and Posttreatment Glioblastoma: Temporal Change and Prognostic Value.

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

3.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI may be helpful to predict response and prognosis after bevacizumab treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma: comparison with diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging.

Authors:  Yae Won Park; Sung Soo Ahn; Ju Hyung Moon; Eui Hyun Kim; Seok-Gu Kang; Jong Hee Chang; Se Hoon Kim; Seung-Koo Lee
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.804

4.  Differentiation between glioblastoma and primary CNS lymphoma: application of DCE-MRI parameters based on arterial input function obtained from DSC-MRI.

Authors:  Koung Mi Kang; Seung Hong Choi; Park Chul-Kee; Tae Min Kim; Sung-Hye Park; Joo Ho Lee; Soon-Tae Lee; Inpyeong Hwang; Roh-Eul Yoo; Tae Jin Yun; Ji-Hoon Kim; Chul-Ho Sohn
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Response prediction of vestibular schwannoma after gamma-knife radiosurgery using pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a prospective study.

Authors:  Inpyeong Hwang; Seung Hong Choi; Jin Wook Kim; Eung Koo Yeon; Ji Ye Lee; Roh-Eul Yoo; Koung Mi Kang; Tae Jin Yun; Ji-Hoon Kim; Chul-Ho Sohn
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Evaluation of single bolus, dual-echo dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI protocols in brain tumor patients.

Authors:  Ashley M Stokes; Maurizio Bergamino; Lea Alhilali; Leland S Hu; John P Karis; Leslie C Baxter; Laura C Bell; C Chad Quarles
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2021-08-20       Impact factor: 6.960

7.  Discriminators of pseudoprogression and true progression in high-grade gliomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chris Taylor; Justyna O Ekert; Viktoria Sefcikova; Naomi Fersht; George Samandouras
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  Prognostic Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI-Derived Pharmacokinetic Variables in Glioblastoma Patients: Analysis of Contrast-Enhancing Lesions and Non-Enhancing T2 High-Signal Intensity Lesions.

Authors:  Sun Won Park; Seung Hong Choi; Yeonah Kang; Eun Kyoung Hong; Jung Hyo Rhim; Roh Eul Yoo; Koung Mi Kang; Tae Jin Yun; Ji Hoon Kim; Chul Ho Sohn
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.500

9.  Imaging and histopathologic correlates of plasma cell-free DNA concentration and circulating tumor DNA in adult patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Authors:  Seyed Ali Nabavizadeh; Jeffrey B Ware; Samantha Guiry; MacLean P Nasrallah; Jazmine J Mays; Jacob E Till; Jasmin Hussain; Aseel Abdalla; Stephanie S Yee; Zev A Binder; Donald M O'Rourke; Steven Brem; Arati S Desai; Ronald Wolf; Erica L Carpenter; Stephen J Bagley
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2020-02-27

Review 10.  Machine learning and glioma imaging biomarkers.

Authors:  T C Booth; M Williams; A Luis; J Cardoso; K Ashkan; H Shuaib
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 2.350

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.