M Iv1, X Liu2, J Lavezo3, A J Gentles4, R Ghanem3, S Lummus3, D E Born3, S G Soltys5, S Nagpal6, R Thomas6, L Recht6, N Fischbein7. 1. From the Departments of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention (M.I., N.F.) miv@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Neurosurgery (X.L.), Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 3. Pathology (J.L., R.G., S.L., D.E.B.). 4. Medicine (Biomedical Informatics Research) (A.J.G.). 5. Radiation Oncology (S.G.S.). 6. Neurology (Neuro-Oncology) (S.N., R.T., L.R.), Stanford University, Stanford, California. 7. From the Departments of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention (M.I., N.F.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fractional tumor burden better correlates with histologic tumor volume fraction in treated glioblastoma than other perfusion metrics such as relative CBV. We defined fractional tumor burden classes with low and high blood volume to distinguish tumor from treatment effect and to determine whether fractional tumor burden can inform treatment-related decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients with high-grade gliomas (primarily glioblastoma) with recurrent contrast-enhancing lesions on DSC-MR imaging were retrospectively evaluated after surgical sampling. Histopathologic examination defined treatment effect versus tumor. Normalized relative CBV thresholds of 1.0 and 1.75 were used to define low, intermediate, and high fractional tumor burden classes in each histopathologically defined group. Performance was assessed with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Consensus agreement among physician raters reporting hypothetic changes in treatment-related decisions based on fractional tumor burden was compared with actual real-time treatment decisions. RESULTS: Mean lower fractional tumor burden, high fractional tumor burden, and relative CBV of the contrast-enhancing volume were significantly different between treatment effect and tumor (P = .002, P < .001, and P < .001), with tumor having significantly higher fractional tumor burden and relative CBV and lower fractional tumor burden. No significance was found with intermediate fractional tumor burden. Performance of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was the following: high fractional tumor burden, 0.85; low fractional tumor burden, 0.7; and relative CBV, 0.81. In comparing treatment decisions, there were disagreements in 7% of tumor and 44% of treatment effect cases; in the latter, all disagreements were in cases with scattered atypical cells. CONCLUSIONS: High fractional tumor burden and low fractional tumor burden define fractions of the contrast-enhancing lesion volume with high and low blood volume, respectively, and can differentiate treatment effect from tumor in recurrent glioblastomas. Fractional tumor burden maps can also help to inform clinical decision-making.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fractional tumor burden better correlates with histologic tumor volume fraction in treated glioblastoma than other perfusion metrics such as relative CBV. We defined fractional tumor burden classes with low and high blood volume to distinguish tumor from treatment effect and to determine whether fractional tumor burden can inform treatment-related decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients with high-grade gliomas (primarily glioblastoma) with recurrent contrast-enhancing lesions on DSC-MR imaging were retrospectively evaluated after surgical sampling. Histopathologic examination defined treatment effect versus tumor. Normalized relative CBV thresholds of 1.0 and 1.75 were used to define low, intermediate, and high fractional tumor burden classes in each histopathologically defined group. Performance was assessed with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Consensus agreement among physician raters reporting hypothetic changes in treatment-related decisions based on fractional tumor burden was compared with actual real-time treatment decisions. RESULTS: Mean lower fractional tumor burden, high fractional tumor burden, and relative CBV of the contrast-enhancing volume were significantly different between treatment effect and tumor (P = .002, P < .001, and P < .001), with tumor having significantly higher fractional tumor burden and relative CBV and lower fractional tumor burden. No significance was found with intermediate fractional tumor burden. Performance of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was the following: high fractional tumor burden, 0.85; low fractional tumor burden, 0.7; and relative CBV, 0.81. In comparing treatment decisions, there were disagreements in 7% of tumor and 44% of treatment effect cases; in the latter, all disagreements were in cases with scattered atypical cells. CONCLUSIONS: High fractional tumor burden and low fractional tumor burden define fractions of the contrast-enhancing lesion volume with high and low blood volume, respectively, and can differentiate treatment effect from tumor in recurrent glioblastomas. Fractional tumor burden maps can also help to inform clinical decision-making.
Authors: J M Hoxworth; J M Eschbacher; A C Gonzales; K W Singleton; G D Leon; K A Smith; A M Stokes; Y Zhou; G L Mazza; A B Porter; M M Mrugala; R S Zimmerman; B R Bendok; D P Patra; C Krishna; J L Boxerman; L C Baxter; K R Swanson; C C Quarles; K M Schmainda; L S Hu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: F Kuo; N N Ng; S Nagpal; E L Pollom; S Soltys; M Hayden-Gephart; G Li; D E Born; M Iv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Otto M Henriksen; María Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Patricia Figueiredo; Gilbert Hangel; Vera C Keil; Ruben E Nechifor; Frank Riemer; Kathleen M Schmainda; Esther A H Warnert; Evita C Wiegers; Thomas C Booth Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Vittorio Stumpo; Lelio Guida; Jacopo Bellomo; Christiaan Hendrik Bas Van Niftrik; Martina Sebök; Moncef Berhouma; Andrea Bink; Michael Weller; Zsolt Kulcsar; Luca Regli; Jorn Fierstra Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 6.639