Conventional MRI Criteria to Differentiate Progressive Disease From Treatment-Induced Effects in High-Grade (WHO Grade 3-4) Gliomas

被引:6
作者
Flies, Christina M. [1 ]
van Leuken, Karlijn H. [1 ,5 ]
ten Voorde, Marlies [1 ,6 ]
Verhoeff, Joost J. C. [2 ]
De Vos, Filip Y. F. [3 ]
Seute, Tatjana [1 ]
Robe, Pierre A. [1 ]
Witkamp, Theodoor D. [4 ]
Hendrikse, Jeroen [4 ]
Dankbaar, Jan Willem [4 ]
Snijders, Tom J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Neurol & Neurosurg, UMC Utrecht Brain Ctr, Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Radiat Oncol, Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Med Oncol, Utrecht, Netherlands
[4] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Radiol, Utrecht, Netherlands
[5] Stichting Beroepsopleiding Huisarts, Utrecht, Netherlands
[6] Misson Netherlands Reformed Congregat Guinea, Siguiri, Guinea
关键词
CEREBRAL RADIATION NECROSIS; CENTRAL-NERVOUS-SYSTEM; RESPONSE ASSESSMENT; TUMOR RECURRENCE; PSEUDOPROGRESSION; GLIOBLASTOMA; CONCOMITANT; THERAPY; BRAIN; CHEMOTHERAPY;
D O I
10.1212/WNL.0000000000200359
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Objectives Posttreatment radiologic deterioration of an irradiated high-grade (WHO grade 3-4) glioma (HGG) may be the result of true progressive disease or treatment-induced effects (TIE). Differentiation between these entities is of great importance but remains a diagnostic challenge. This study assesses the diagnostic value of conventional MRI characteristics to differentiate progressive disease from TIE in HGGs. Methods In this single-center, retrospective, consecutive cohort study, we included adults with a HGG who were treated with (chemo-)radiotherapy and subsequently developed a new or increasing contrast-enhancing lesion on conventional follow-up MRI. TIE and progressive disease were defined radiologically as stable/decreased for >= 6 weeks or Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology progression and histologically as TIE without viable tumor or progressive disease. Two neuroradiologists assessed 21 preselected MRI characteristics of the progressive lesions. The statistical analysis included logistic regression to develop a full multivariable model, a diagnostic model with model reduction, and a Cohen kappa interrater reliability (IRR) coefficient. Results A total of 210 patients (median age 61 years, interquartile range 54-68, 189 male) with 284 lesions were included, of whom 141 (50%) had progressive disease. Median time to progressive disease was 2 (0.7-6.1) and to TIE 0.9 (0.7-3.5) months after radiotherapy. After multivariable modeling and model reduction, the following determinants prevailed: radiation dose (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.93), longer time to progression (TTP; OR 3.56, 95% CI 1.84-6.88), marginal enhancement (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.09-3.83), soap bubble enhancement (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.39-4.98), and isointense apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) signal (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.05-4.24). ORs >1 indicate higher odds of progressive disease. The Hosmer & Lemeshow test showed good calibration (p = 0.947) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.722 (95% CI 0.66-0.78). In the glioblastoma subgroup, TTP, marginal enhancement, and ADC signal were significant. IRR analysis between neuroradiologists revealed moderate to near perfect agreement for the predictive items but poor agreement for others. Discussion Several characteristics from conventional MRI are significant predictors for the discrimination between progressive disease and TIE. However, IRR was variable. Conventional MRI characteristics from this study should be incorporated into a multimodal diagnostic model with advanced imaging techniques. Classification of Evidence This study provides Class II evidence that in patients with irradiated HGGs, radiation dose, longer TTP, marginal enhancement, soap bubble enhancement, and isointense ADC signal distinguish progressive disease from TIE.
引用
收藏
页码:E77 / E88
页数:12
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   Combined analysis of MGMT methylation and dynamic-susceptibility-contrast MRI for the distinction between early and pseudo-progression in glioblastoma patients [J].
Bani-Sadr, A. ;
Berner, L. P. ;
Barritault, M. ;
Chamard, L. ;
Bidet, C. M. ;
Eker, O. F. ;
Hermier, M. ;
Guyotat, J. ;
Jouanneau, E. ;
Meyronet, D. ;
Gouttard, S. ;
D'Hombres, A. ;
Iziquierdo, C. ;
Honnorat, J. ;
Berthezene, Y. ;
Ducray, F. .
REVUE NEUROLOGIQUE, 2019, 175 (09) :534-543
[2]   Retrospective Analysis of Radiological Recurrence Patterns in Glioblastoma, Their Prognostic Value And Association to Postoperative Infarct Volume [J].
Bette, Stefanie ;
Barz, Melanie ;
Huber, Thomas ;
Straube, Christoph ;
Schmidt-Graf, Friederike ;
Combs, Stephanie E. ;
Delbridge, Claire ;
Gerhardt, Julia ;
Zimmer, Claus ;
Meyer, Bernhard ;
Kirschke, Jan S. ;
Boeckh-Behrens, Tobias ;
Wiestler, Benedikt ;
Gempt, Jens .
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2018, 8
[3]   Disease progression or pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment: Pitfalls in neurooncology [J].
Brandes, Alba A. ;
Tosoni, Alicia ;
Spagnolli, Federica ;
Frezza, Giarnpiero ;
Leonardi, Marco ;
Calbucci, Fabio ;
Franceschi, Enrico .
NEURO-ONCOLOGY, 2008, 10 (03) :361-367
[4]   Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas [J].
Brandsma, Dieto ;
Stalpers, Lukas ;
Taal, Walter ;
Sminia, Peter ;
van den Bent, Martinj .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2008, 9 (05) :453-461
[5]   Pseudoprogression, radionecrosis, inflammation or true tumor progression? challenges associated with glioblastoma response assessment in an evolving therapeutic landscape [J].
Ellingson, Benjamin M. ;
Chung, Caroline ;
Pope, Whitney B. ;
Boxerman, Jerrold L. ;
Kaufmann, Timothy J. .
JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY, 2017, 134 (03) :495-504
[6]   Modified Criteria for Radiographic Response Assessment in Glioblastoma Clinical Trials [J].
Ellingson, Benjamin M. ;
Wen, Patrick Y. ;
Cloughesy, Timothy F. .
NEUROTHERAPEUTICS, 2017, 14 (02) :307-320
[7]   Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials [J].
Ellingson, Benjamin M. ;
Bendszus, Martin ;
Boxerman, Jerrold ;
Barboriak, Daniel ;
Erickson, Bradley J. ;
Smits, Marion ;
Nelson, Sarah J. ;
Gerstner, Elizabeth ;
Alexander, Brian ;
Goldmacher, Gregory ;
Wick, Wolfgang ;
Vogelbaum, Michael ;
Weller, Michael ;
Galanis, Evanthia ;
Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree ;
Shankar, Lalitha ;
Jacobs, Paula ;
Pope, Whitney B. ;
Yang, Dewen ;
Chung, Caroline ;
Knopp, Michael V. ;
Cha, Soonme ;
van den Bent, Martin J. ;
Chang, Susan ;
Al Yung, W. K. ;
Cloughesy, Timothy F. ;
Wen, Patrick Y. ;
Gilbert, Mark R. .
NEURO-ONCOLOGY, 2015, 17 (09) :1188-1198
[8]   Toward a standard pathological and molecular characterization of recurrent glioma in adults: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology effort [J].
Haider, Ali S. ;
van den Bent, Martin ;
Wen, Patrick Y. ;
Vogelbaum, Michael A. ;
Chang, Susan ;
Canoll, Peter D. ;
Horbinski, Craig M. ;
Huse, Jason T. .
NEURO-ONCOLOGY, 2020, 22 (04) :450-456
[9]  
Hein PA, 2004, AM J NEURORADIOL, V25, P201
[10]   Which Combination of MR Imaging Modalities Is Best for Predicting Recurrent Glioblastoma? Study of Diagnostic Accuracy and Reproducibility [J].
Kim, Ho Sung ;
Goh, Myeong Ju ;
Kim, Namkug ;
Choi, Choong Gon ;
Kim, Sang Joon ;
Kim, Jeong Hoon .
RADIOLOGY, 2014, 273 (03) :831-843