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. 1. From the Department of Radiology (J.G.N., K.M.K., S.H.C., W.H.L., R.-E.Y., J.-H.K., T.J.Y., C.-H.S.), Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 2. From the Department of Radiology (J.G.N., K.M.K., S.H.C., W.H.L., R.-E.Y., J.-H.K., T.J.Y., C.-H.S.), Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea we3001@gmail.com. 3. Center for Nanoparticle Research, Institute for Basic Science (S.H.C., C.-H.S.). 4. School of Chemical and Biological Engineering (S.H.C.), Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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