| Literature DB >> 35954435 |
Danlei Qin1,2, Guoqiang Yang3, Hui Jing4, Yan Tan3, Bin Zhao1,2, Hui Zhang1,3,5.
Abstract
As the most common neuro-epithelial tumors of the central nervous system in adults, gliomas are highly malignant and easy to recurrence, with a dismal prognosis. Imaging studies are indispensable for tracking tumor progression (TP) or treatment-related changes (TRCs). During follow-up, distinguishing TRCs from TP in treated patients with gliomas remains challenging as both share similar clinical symptoms and morphological imaging characteristics (with new and/or increasing enhancing mass lesions) and fulfill criteria for progression. Thus, the early identification of TP and TRCs is of great significance for determining the prognosis and treatment. Histopathological biopsy is currently the gold standard for TP and TRC diagnosis. However, the invasive nature of this technique limits its clinical application. Advanced imaging methods (e.g., diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), perfusion MRI, magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), positron emission tomography (PET), amide proton transfer (APT) and artificial intelligence (AI)) provide a non-invasive and feasible technical means for identifying of TP and TRCs at an early stage, which have recently become research hotspots. This paper reviews the current research on using the abovementioned advanced imaging methods to identify TP and TRCs of gliomas. First, the review focuses on the pathological changes of the two entities to establish a theoretical basis for imaging identification. Then, it elaborates on the application of different imaging techniques and AI in identifying the two entities. Finally, the current challenges and future prospects of these techniques and methods are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; glioma; magnetic resonance imaging; positron emission tomography; treatment-related changes; tumor progression
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954435 PMCID: PMC9367286 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14153771
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1This picture summarizes the basic framework and ideas of the review. We concentrate our discussion mainly on recent advancements from conventional (A) and advanced (B) imaging to AI (C) in identifying TP and TRCs. (C) Copyright 2019, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LICENSE.
Cut off values of PET tracers for the detection of TP and TRCs.
| Study | TP | TRCs | Modality | Tracer | Parameter | Cutoff | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Galldiks et al. [ | 11 | 11 | PET | 18F-FET | TBRmax, | 2.3 | 100% | 91% | 96% |
| Galldiks et al. [ | 121 | 11 | PET/MRI | 18F-FET | TBRmean | 2.0 | 93% | 100% | 93% |
| Kebir et al. [ | 19 | 7 | PET | 18F-FET | TBRmax | 1.9 | 84% | 86% | 85% |
| Jena et al. [ | 25 | 10 | PET/MRI | 18F-FDG | TBRmax | 1.579 | 93.3% | 72.7% | 87.8% |
| Deuschl et al. [ | 35 | 15 | PET/MRI | 11C–MET | TBRmax | 1.83 | 97.14% | 93.33% | 96% |
| Park et al. [ | 38 | 5 | PET/MRI | 11C–MET | TBRmax | 1.40 | 82.1% | 66.7% | - |
| Werner et al. [ | 38 | 10 | PET/MRI | 18F-FET | TBRmax | 1.95 | 100% | 79% | 83% |
| Maurer et al. [ | 94 | 33 | PET | 18F-FET | TBRmax | 1.95 | 70% | 71% | 70% |
| Pellerin et al. [ | 34 | 24 | PET/MRI | 18F-DOPA | Tumor isocontour maps and T-maps | - | 100% | 94.1% | - |
The diagnostic performance of various technologies for TP and TRCs, and related parameter thresholds.
| Study | TP | TRCs | Modality | Parameter | Cut-off for TP | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee et al. [ | 10 | 12 | DWI | Mean ADC | 1200 × 10−6 mm2/s | 80.0% | 83.3% | 81.2% |
| Yoo et al. [ | 24 | 18 | DWI | The 5th percentile of ADC (b = 1000) | 915 × 10−6 mm2/s | 83% | 67% | - |
| Chu et al. [ | 15 | 15 | DWI | The 5th percentile of ADC (b = 3000) | 645 × 10−6 mm2/s | 93.33% | 100% | 88.9% |
| Kim et al. [ | 31 | 20 | IVIM | Mean 90th percentile for perfusion (f) | 0.056 | 87.1% | 95.0% | - |
| Kong et al. [ | 33 | 26 | DSC | Mean rCBV | 1.47 | 81.5% | 77.8% | - |
| Baek et al. [ | 42 | 37 | DSC | Skewness and kurtosis of normalized CBV | 1.27 | 85.7% | 89.2% | - |
| Yun et al. [ | 17 | 16 | DCE | Mean Ktrans/mean Ve | 0.347/0.570 | 59%/88% | 94%/56% | - |
| Yoo et al. [ | 16 | 8 | DCE | Mean Ve | 0.873 | 100% | 63% | 88% |
| Thomas et al. [ | 24 | 13 | DCE | Vp90%/mean Vp/mean Ktrans | 3.9/3.7/3.6 | 92%/85%/69% | 85%/79%/79% | - |
| Bisdas et al. [ | 12 | 6 | DCE | Ktrans/IAUC | 0.91/15.35 | 100%/75% | 83%/67% | - |
| Suh et al. [ | 43 | 36 | DCE | mAUCRH/50thAUCR | 0.31/0.19 | 90.1%/87.2% | 82.9%/83.1% | - |
| Chung et al. [ | 32 | 25 | DCE | mAUCRH/90thAUCR | 0.23/0.32 | 93.8%/90.6% | 88%/88% | - |
| Ma et al. [ | 20 | 12 | APT | APTmean/APTmax | 2.42/2.54 | 85.0%/95% | 100%/91.7% | - |
| Choi et al. [ | 34 | 28 | ASL/DSC | CBF/normalized rCBV | - | 94.1% | 82.1% | 88.7% |
| Nael et al. [ | 34 | 12 | DWI/DSC/DCE | rCBV/Ktrans | 2.2/0.08 | 94.1 | 91.6 | 92.8 |
| Razek et al. [ | 24 | 18 | ASL/DTI | CBF/FA/MD | - | 93.8% | 95.8% | 95% |
| Seeger et al. [ | 23 | 17 | DSC/DCE/ASL/MRS | normalized rCBV or rCBF /Ktrans/rCBF/Cho/Crn | rCBV ≥ 3.9 or rCBF ≥ 4.1, | 82.6% | 100% | 90% |
| Wang et al. [ | 21 | 20 | DSC/DTI | FA/CL/rCBVmax | 0.55 | 76% | 95% | - |
| Prager et al. [ | 58 | 10 | DWI/DSC | ADC/normalized rCBV | ADC ≤ 1.49 × 10−3 mm2/s/rCBV ≥1.27 | 51.2% | 100% | - |
| Park et al. [ | 45 | 63 | DWI/DSC/DCE | 10th percentileof | ADC10 < 1.14 × 10 mm2/s/ | 91.1% | 90.5% | 90.7% |
Summary of current techniques and their advantages and limitations for differentiating TP and TRCs of gliomas.
| Imaging | Parameters | Pattern | Advantages | Limitations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional MRI and TI-CE | No | Corpus callosum involvement; | Widely applied; | Overlapping images | [ |
| DWI | ADC | Lower mean ADC value | Characterize tissues and pathologic processes at the microscopic level; | Influenced by many factors, such as inflammatory; | [ |
| IVIM | D | Higher f | No contrast required; | Low cerebral perfusion fraction; | [ |
| DTI | FA | Lower MD and higher FA values | Measured directional variation of water diffusivity | Affected by many factors Susceptibility artifacts | [ |
| DSC | rCBV | Higher rCBV or rCBF value | Widely available; | Poorer spatial resolution; | [ |
| DCE | Ktrans | Higher Ktrans, Ve and Vp value | Higher spatial resolution; | Longer scan time; decreased temporal resolution; | [ |
| ASL | rCBF | Higher CBF values | No contrast required; | Low signal-to-noise ratio; | [ |
| MRS | Cho/NAA | Higher Cho/NAA and Cho/Cr | Reflects tissue metabolism; | Long scan times required; | [ |
| APT | APTw | Higher APTw signals | Reflect cell proliferation; | Signal weakness; | [ |
| 18F-FDG PET | SUVTBR | Higher TBR | Widely available | High background signal | [ |
| 11C-MET PET | SUVTBR | SUVs tend to be higher | Lower background activity | Short half-life; | [ |
| 18F-FET PET | SUVTBR | Higher TBR | High contrast | Requires more research | [ |