Luke A Perry1, Panagiotis Korfiatis2, Jay P Agrawal3, Bradley J Erickson4. 1. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First St Sw, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First St Sw, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. bje@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our study tested the diagnostic accuracy of increased signal intensity (SI) within FLAIR MR images of resection cavities in differentiating early progressive disease (ePD) from pseudoprogression (PsP) in patients with glioblastoma treated with radiotherapy with concomitant temozolomide therapy. METHODS: In this retrospective study approved by our Institutional Review Board, we evaluated the records of 122 consecutive patients with partially or totally resected glioblastoma. Region of interest (ROI) analysis assessed 33 MR examinations from 11 subjects with histologically confirmed ePD and 37 MR examinations from 14 subjects with PsP (5 histologically confirmed, 9 clinically diagnosed). After applying an N4 bias correction algorithm to remove B0 field distortion and to standardize image intensities and then normalizing the intensities based on an ROI of uninvolved white matter from the contralateral hemisphere, the mean intensities of the ROI from within the resection cavities were calculated. Measures of diagnostic performance were calculated from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using the threshold intensity that maximized differentiation. Subgroup analysis explored differences between the patients with biopsy-confirmed disease. RESULTS: At an optimal threshold intensity of 2.9, the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for FLAIR to differentiate ePD from PsP was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.686-0.873) with a sensitivity of 0.818 and specificity of 0.694. The AUROC increased to 0.86 when only the patients with biopsy-confirmed PsP were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Increased SI within the resection cavity of FLAIR images is not a highly specific sign of ePD in glioblastoma patients treated with the Stupp protocol.
PURPOSE: Our study tested the diagnostic accuracy of increased signal intensity (SI) within FLAIR MR images of resection cavities in differentiating early progressive disease (ePD) from pseudoprogression (PsP) in patients with glioblastoma treated with radiotherapy with concomitant temozolomide therapy. METHODS: In this retrospective study approved by our Institutional Review Board, we evaluated the records of 122 consecutive patients with partially or totally resected glioblastoma. Region of interest (ROI) analysis assessed 33 MR examinations from 11 subjects with histologically confirmed ePD and 37 MR examinations from 14 subjects with PsP (5 histologically confirmed, 9 clinically diagnosed). After applying an N4 bias correction algorithm to remove B0 field distortion and to standardize image intensities and then normalizing the intensities based on an ROI of uninvolved white matter from the contralateral hemisphere, the mean intensities of the ROI from within the resection cavities were calculated. Measures of diagnostic performance were calculated from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve using the threshold intensity that maximized differentiation. Subgroup analysis explored differences between the patients with biopsy-confirmed disease. RESULTS: At an optimal threshold intensity of 2.9, the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for FLAIR to differentiate ePD from PsP was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.686-0.873) with a sensitivity of 0.818 and specificity of 0.694. The AUROC increased to 0.86 when only the patients with biopsy-confirmed PsP were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Increased SI within the resection cavity of FLAIR images is not a highly specific sign of ePD in glioblastomapatients treated with the Stupp protocol.
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L C Hygino da Cruz; I Rodriguez; R C Domingues; E L Gasparetto; A G Sorensen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-03-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Nicholas J Tustison; Brian B Avants; Philip A Cook; Yuanjie Zheng; Alexander Egan; Paul A Yushkevich; James C Gee Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Kathleen M Schmainda; Zheng Zhang; Melissa Prah; Bradley S Snyder; Mark R Gilbert; A Gregory Sorensen; Daniel P Barboriak; Jerrold L Boxerman Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 12.300