Thomas C Booth1,2, Aysha Luis3,4, Lucy Brazil5, Gerry Thompson6, Rachel A Daniel3, Haris Shuaib7,8, Keyoumars Ashkan9, Anmol Pandey10. 1. School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK. tombooth@doctors.org.uk. 2. Department of Neuroradiology Ruskin Wing, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK. tombooth@doctors.org.uk. 3. School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, National Hospital For Neurology and Neurosrgery, London, WC1N 3BG, UK. 5. Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 7EH, UK. 6. Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK. 7. Department of Medical Physics, Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 7EH, UK. 8. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK. 9. Department of Neurosurgery, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK. 10. Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: MRI remains the preferred imaging investigation for glioblastoma. Appropriate and timely neuroimaging in the follow-up period is considered to be important in making management decisions. There is a paucity of evidence-based information in current UK, European and international guidelines regarding the optimal timing and type of neuroimaging following initial neurosurgical treatment. This study assessed the current imaging practices amongst UK neuro-oncology centres, thus providing baseline data and informing future practice. METHODS: The lead neuro-oncologist, neuroradiologist and neurosurgeon from every UK neuro-oncology centre were invited to complete an online survey. Participants were asked about current and ideal imaging practices following initial treatment. RESULTS: Ninety-two participants from all 31 neuro-oncology centres completed the survey (100% response rate). Most centres routinely performed an early post-operative MRI (87%, 27/31), whereas only a third performed a pre-radiotherapy MRI (32%, 10/31). The number and timing of scans routinely performed during adjuvant TMZ treatment varied widely between centres. At the end of the adjuvant period, most centres performed an MRI (71%, 22/31), followed by monitoring scans at 3 monthly intervals (81%, 25/31). Additional short-interval imaging was carried out in cases of possible pseudoprogression in most centres (71%, 22/31). Routine use of advanced imaging was infrequent; however, the addition of advanced sequences was the most popular suggestion for ideal imaging practice, followed by changes in the timing of EPMRI. CONCLUSION: Variations in neuroimaging practices exist after initial glioblastoma treatment within the UK. Multicentre, longitudinal, prospective trials are needed to define the optimal imaging schedule for assessment. KEY POINTS: • Variations in imaging practices exist in the frequency, timing and type of interval neuroimaging after initial treatment of glioblastoma within the UK. • Large, multicentre, longitudinal, prospective trials are needed to define the optimal imaging schedule for assessment.
OBJECTIVES: MRI remains the preferred imaging investigation for glioblastoma. Appropriate and timely neuroimaging in the follow-up period is considered to be important in making management decisions. There is a paucity of evidence-based information in current UK, European and international guidelines regarding the optimal timing and type of neuroimaging following initial neurosurgical treatment. This study assessed the current imaging practices amongst UK neuro-oncology centres, thus providing baseline data and informing future practice. METHODS: The lead neuro-oncologist, neuroradiologist and neurosurgeon from every UK neuro-oncology centre were invited to complete an online survey. Participants were asked about current and ideal imaging practices following initial treatment. RESULTS: Ninety-two participants from all 31 neuro-oncology centres completed the survey (100% response rate). Most centres routinely performed an early post-operative MRI (87%, 27/31), whereas only a third performed a pre-radiotherapy MRI (32%, 10/31). The number and timing of scans routinely performed during adjuvant TMZ treatment varied widely between centres. At the end of the adjuvant period, most centres performed an MRI (71%, 22/31), followed by monitoring scans at 3 monthly intervals (81%, 25/31). Additional short-interval imaging was carried out in cases of possible pseudoprogression in most centres (71%, 22/31). Routine use of advanced imaging was infrequent; however, the addition of advanced sequences was the most popular suggestion for ideal imaging practice, followed by changes in the timing of EPMRI. CONCLUSION: Variations in neuroimaging practices exist after initial glioblastoma treatment within the UK. Multicentre, longitudinal, prospective trials are needed to define the optimal imaging schedule for assessment. KEY POINTS: • Variations in imaging practices exist in the frequency, timing and type of interval neuroimaging after initial treatment of glioblastoma within the UK. • Large, multicentre, longitudinal, prospective trials are needed to define the optimal imaging schedule for assessment.
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: Thomas C Booth; Gerard Thompson; Helen Bulbeck; Florien Boele; Craig Buckley; Jorge Cardoso; Liane Dos Santos Canas; David Jenkinson; Keyoumars Ashkan; Jack Kreindler; Nicky Huskens; Aysha Luis; Catherine McBain; Samantha J Mills; Marc Modat; Nick Morley; Caroline Murphy; Sebastian Ourselin; Mark Pennington; James Powell; David Summers; Adam D Waldman; Colin Watts; Matthew Williams; Robin Grant; Michael D Jenkinson Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Thomas C Booth; Mariusz Grzeda; Alysha Chelliah; Andrei Roman; Ayisha Al Busaidi; Carmen Dragos; Haris Shuaib; Aysha Luis; Ayesha Mirchandani; Burcu Alparslan; Nina Mansoor; Jose Lavrador; Francesco Vergani; Keyoumars Ashkan; Marc Modat; Sebastien Ourselin Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Thomas C Booth; Evita C Wiegers; Esther A H Warnert; Kathleen M Schmainda; Frank Riemer; Ruben E Nechifor; Vera C Keil; Gilbert Hangel; Patrícia Figueiredo; Maria Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Otto M Henriksen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Orkhan Mammadov; Burak Han Akkurt; Manfred Musigmann; Asena Petek Ari; David A Blömer; Dilek N G Kasap; Dylan J H A Henssen; Nabila Gala Nacul; Elisabeth Sartoretti; Thomas Sartoretti; Philipp Backhaus; Christian Thomas; Walter Stummer; Walter Heindel; Manoj Mannil Journal: Heliyon Date: 2022-08-02
Authors: Conor S Gillespie; Emily R Bligh; Michael T C Poon; Georgios Solomou; Abdurrahman I Islim; Mohammad A Mustafa; Ola Rominiyi; Sophie T Williams; Neeraj Kalra; Ryan K Mathew; Thomas C Booth; Gerard Thompson; Paul M Brennan; Michael D Jenkinson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 3.006