Recurrent tumor and treatment-induced effects have different MR signatures in contrast enhancing and non-enhancing lesions of high-grade gliomas.
DSC perfusion imaging
MRI
MRSI
diffusion-weighted imaging
glioblastoma
high-grade glioma
image-guided tissue acquisition
spectroscopic imaging
treatment effect
Journal
Neuro-oncology
ISSN: 1523-5866
Titre abrégé: Neuro Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100887420
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 10 2020
14 10 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
23
4
2020
medline:
24
4
2021
entrez:
23
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Differentiating treatment-induced injury from recurrent high-grade glioma is an ongoing challenge in neuro-oncology, in part due to lesion heterogeneity. This study aimed to determine whether different MR features were relevant for distinguishing recurrent tumor from the effects of treatment in contrast-enhancing lesions (CEL) and non-enhancing lesions (NEL). This prospective study analyzed 291 tissue samples (222 recurrent tumor, 69 treatment-effect) with known coordinates on imaging from 139 patients who underwent preoperative 3T MRI and surgery for a suspected recurrence. 8 MR parameter values were tested from perfusion-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and MR spectroscopic imaging at each tissue sample location for association with histopathological outcome using generalized estimating equation models for CEL and NEL tissue samples. Individual cutoff values were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with 5-fold cross-validation. In tissue samples obtained from CEL, elevated relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) was associated with the presence of recurrent tumor pathology (P < 0.03), while increases in normalized choline (nCho) and choline-to-NAA index (CNI) were associated with the presence of recurrent tumor pathology in NEL tissue samples (P < 0.008). A mean CNI cutoff value of 2.7 had the highest performance, resulting in mean sensitivity and specificity of 0.61 and 0.81 for distinguishing treatment-effect from recurrent tumor within the NEL. Although our results support prior work that underscores the utility of rCBV in distinguishing the effects of treatment from recurrent tumor within the contrast enhancing lesion, we found that metabolic parameters may be better at differentiating recurrent tumor from treatment-related changes in the NEL of high-grade gliomas.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Differentiating treatment-induced injury from recurrent high-grade glioma is an ongoing challenge in neuro-oncology, in part due to lesion heterogeneity. This study aimed to determine whether different MR features were relevant for distinguishing recurrent tumor from the effects of treatment in contrast-enhancing lesions (CEL) and non-enhancing lesions (NEL).
METHODS
This prospective study analyzed 291 tissue samples (222 recurrent tumor, 69 treatment-effect) with known coordinates on imaging from 139 patients who underwent preoperative 3T MRI and surgery for a suspected recurrence. 8 MR parameter values were tested from perfusion-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and MR spectroscopic imaging at each tissue sample location for association with histopathological outcome using generalized estimating equation models for CEL and NEL tissue samples. Individual cutoff values were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with 5-fold cross-validation.
RESULTS
In tissue samples obtained from CEL, elevated relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) was associated with the presence of recurrent tumor pathology (P < 0.03), while increases in normalized choline (nCho) and choline-to-NAA index (CNI) were associated with the presence of recurrent tumor pathology in NEL tissue samples (P < 0.008). A mean CNI cutoff value of 2.7 had the highest performance, resulting in mean sensitivity and specificity of 0.61 and 0.81 for distinguishing treatment-effect from recurrent tumor within the NEL.
CONCLUSION
Although our results support prior work that underscores the utility of rCBV in distinguishing the effects of treatment from recurrent tumor within the contrast enhancing lesion, we found that metabolic parameters may be better at differentiating recurrent tumor from treatment-related changes in the NEL of high-grade gliomas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32319527
pii: 5823723
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa094
pmc: PMC7566399
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1516-1526Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA118816
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA151022
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Neurooncol. 2017 Sep;134(3):495-504
pubmed: 28382534
Ann Biomed Eng. 2011 Jan;39(1):193-204
pubmed: 20652745
Neurosurgery. 2002 Oct;51(4):912-9; discussion 919-20
pubmed: 12234397
Clin Neuroradiol. 2018 Sep;28(3):401-411
pubmed: 28466127
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Apr;32(4):658-63
pubmed: 21330392
Int J Biomed Imaging. 2013;2013:169526
pubmed: 23970895
Neuroimage Clin. 2016 Feb 26;11:316-321
pubmed: 27298760
Acad Radiol. 2011 Sep;18(9):1101-8
pubmed: 21820634
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Mar 1;19(3):430-439
pubmed: 27576874
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 10;28(11):1963-72
pubmed: 20231676
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2009 Sep;49(9):394-401
pubmed: 19779283
Neuro Oncol. 2011 Sep;13(9):1037-46
pubmed: 21803763
Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Dec;24(10):1295-302
pubmed: 17145400
Neuro Oncol. 2013 May;15(5):607-17
pubmed: 23393206
Eur Radiol. 2017 Oct;27(10):4129-4144
pubmed: 28332014
Neurosurg Focus. 2007 May 15;22(5):E8
pubmed: 17613239
Neuro Oncol. 2012 Jul;14(7):942-54
pubmed: 22711606
J Neurosurg. 1986 Mar;64(3):427-39
pubmed: 3005528
Clin Nucl Med. 2014 Sep;39(9):791-8
pubmed: 25036022
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 Mar 17;12:77
pubmed: 21414208
Am J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun;40(3):228-234
pubmed: 25436828
Med Image Anal. 2017 Jan;35:403-420
pubmed: 27585837
Acta Radiol. 2010 Apr;51(3):316-25
pubmed: 20092374
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004 Feb;25(2):201-9
pubmed: 14970018
Neuroimage. 2002 Oct;17(2):825-41
pubmed: 12377157
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009 Mar;30(3):552-8
pubmed: 19056837
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 May;38(5):899-907
pubmed: 28341716
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001 Feb;13(2):167-77
pubmed: 11169821
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 May;36(5):877-85
pubmed: 25593202
Front Neurosci. 2013 Apr 04;7:41
pubmed: 23596381
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2009 May;111(4):331-4
pubmed: 19117668
Acad Radiol. 2013 Dec;20(12):1557-65
pubmed: 24200483
Neurotherapeutics. 2017 Apr;14(2):307-320
pubmed: 28108885
Oncotarget. 2017 Mar 21;8(12):20340-20353
pubmed: 27823971
Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Sep;32(7):854-9
pubmed: 24848292