Comparison of a new MR rapid wash-out map with MR perfusion in brain tumors.
Contrast clearance
Late enhancement
MR perfusion
Wash out
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Sep 2024
12 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
09
07
2024
accepted:
06
09
2024
medline:
13
9
2024
pubmed:
13
9
2024
entrez:
12
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
MR perfusion is a standard marker to distinguish progression and therapy-associated changes after surgery and radiochemotherapy for glioblastoma. TRAMs (Treatment Response Assessment Maps) were introduced, which are intended to facilitate the differentiation of vital tumor cells and radiation necrosis by means of late (20-90 min) contrast clearance and enhancement. The differences of MR perfusion and late-enhancement are not fully understood yet. We have implemented and established a fully automated creation of rapid wash-out (15-20 min interval) maps in our clinic. We included patients with glioblastoma, CNS lymphoma or brain metastases who underwent our MR protocol with MR perfusion and rapid wash-out between 01/01/2024 and 30/06/2024. Since both wash-out and hyperperfusion are intended to depict the active tumor area, this study involves a quantitative and qualitative comparison of both methods. For this purpose, we volumetrically measured rCBV (relative cerebral blood volume) maps and rapid wash-out maps separately (two raters). Additionally, we rated the agreement between both maps on a Likert scale (0-10). Thirty-two patients were included in the study: 15 with glioblastoma, 7 with CNS lymphomas and 10 with brain metastasis. We calculated 36 rapid wash-out maps (9 initial diagnosis, 27 follow-up). Visual agreement of MR perfusion with rapid wash-out by rating were found in 44 ± 40% for initial diagnosis, and 75 ± 31% for follow-up. We found a strong correlation (Pearson coefficient 0.92, p < 0.001) between the measured volumes of MR perfusion and rapid wash-out. The measured volumes of MR perfusion and rapid wash-out did not differ significantly. Small lesions were often not detected by MR perfusion. Nevertheless, the measured volumes showed no significant differences in this small cohort. Rapid wash-out calculation is a simple tool that provides new information and, when used in conjunction with MR perfusion, may increase diagnostic accuracy. The method shows promising results, particularly in the evaluation of small lesions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
MR perfusion is a standard marker to distinguish progression and therapy-associated changes after surgery and radiochemotherapy for glioblastoma. TRAMs (Treatment Response Assessment Maps) were introduced, which are intended to facilitate the differentiation of vital tumor cells and radiation necrosis by means of late (20-90 min) contrast clearance and enhancement. The differences of MR perfusion and late-enhancement are not fully understood yet.
METHODS
METHODS
We have implemented and established a fully automated creation of rapid wash-out (15-20 min interval) maps in our clinic. We included patients with glioblastoma, CNS lymphoma or brain metastases who underwent our MR protocol with MR perfusion and rapid wash-out between 01/01/2024 and 30/06/2024. Since both wash-out and hyperperfusion are intended to depict the active tumor area, this study involves a quantitative and qualitative comparison of both methods. For this purpose, we volumetrically measured rCBV (relative cerebral blood volume) maps and rapid wash-out maps separately (two raters). Additionally, we rated the agreement between both maps on a Likert scale (0-10).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-two patients were included in the study: 15 with glioblastoma, 7 with CNS lymphomas and 10 with brain metastasis. We calculated 36 rapid wash-out maps (9 initial diagnosis, 27 follow-up). Visual agreement of MR perfusion with rapid wash-out by rating were found in 44 ± 40% for initial diagnosis, and 75 ± 31% for follow-up. We found a strong correlation (Pearson coefficient 0.92, p < 0.001) between the measured volumes of MR perfusion and rapid wash-out. The measured volumes of MR perfusion and rapid wash-out did not differ significantly. Small lesions were often not detected by MR perfusion. Nevertheless, the measured volumes showed no significant differences in this small cohort.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Rapid wash-out calculation is a simple tool that provides new information and, when used in conjunction with MR perfusion, may increase diagnostic accuracy. The method shows promising results, particularly in the evaluation of small lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39267002
doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-12909-z
pii: 10.1186/s12885-024-12909-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1139Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Patel P, Baradaran H, Delgado D, Askin G, Christos P, John Tsiouris A, et al. MR perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of high-grade gliomas after treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro-Oncol. 2017;19:118–27.
pubmed: 27502247
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/now148
Thust SC, Heiland S, Falini A, Jäger HR, Waldman AD, Sundgren PC, et al. Glioma imaging in Europe: a survey of 220 centres and recommendations for best clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:3306–17.
pubmed: 29536240
pmcid: 6028837
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5314-5
Abreu VS, Tarrio J, Silva J, Almeida F, Pinto C, Freitas D, et al. Multiparametric analysis from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI to evaluate malignant brain tumors. J Neuroimaging. 2024;34:257–66.
pubmed: 38173078
doi: 10.1111/jon.13183
Zach L, Guez D, Last D, Daniels D, Grober Y, Nissim O, et al. Delayed contrast Extravasation MRI for depicting tumor and Non-tumoral Tissues in primary and metastatic brain tumors. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e52008.
pubmed: 23251672
pmcid: 3522646
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052008
Zach L, Guez D, Last D, Daniels D, Grober Y, Nissim O, et al. Delayed contrast extravasation MRI: a new paradigm in neuro-oncology. Neuro-Oncol. 2015;17:457–65.
pubmed: 25452395
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nou230
Millard T, Chau I, Iyengar S, El-Sharkawi D, Cunningham D, Sharma B. Treatment Response Assessment maps (TRAMs), a new tool for CNS lymphoma. eJHaem. 2022;3:247–8.
pubmed: 35846207
pmcid: 9176043
doi: 10.1002/jha2.346
Lakehayli Z, Phlips P, Margoum A, Saoudi A, Hmaid L, Nejjar I, et al. What effective technique to differentiate radiation brain necrosis from a tumor progression in patients treated with radiation: a monocentric retrospective study combining the MRI TRAMs technique and the (18F)-dopa PET/CT. Cancer/Radiothérapie. 2023;27:273–80.
pubmed: 37080856
doi: 10.1016/j.canrad.2022.12.002
Satvat N, Korczynski O, Müller-Eschner M, Othman AE, Schöffling V, Keric N, et al. A Rapid Late Enhancement MRI Protocol improves differentiation between Brain Tumor recurrence and treatment-related contrast Enhancement of Brain Parenchyma. Cancers. 2022;14:5523.
pubmed: 36428617
pmcid: 9688406
doi: 10.3390/cancers14225523
Attenberger UI, Runge VM, Jackson CB, Baumann S, Birkemeier K, Michaely HJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of Lesion Enhancement using 1 M gadobutrol vs. 2 conventional gadolinium chelates, all at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg, in a rat brain tumor model at 3 T. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:251–6.
pubmed: 19550376
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31819ba711
Engelhorn T, Schwarz MA, Eyupoglu IY, Kloska SP, Struffert T, Doerfler A. Dynamic contrast enhancement of experimental glioma. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:188–93.
pubmed: 19910218
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.08.014
Kushnirsky M, Nguyen V, Katz JS, Steinklein J, Rosen L, Warshall C, et al. Time-delayed contrast-enhanced MRI improves detection of brain metastases and apparent treatment volumes. J Neurosurg. 2016;124:489–95.
pubmed: 26361281
doi: 10.3171/2015.2.JNS141993
Cho SK, Na DG, Ryoo JW, Roh HG, Moon CH, Byun HS, et al. Perfusion MR Imaging: clinical utility for the Differential diagnosis of various brain tumors. Korean J Radiol. 2002;3:171.
pubmed: 12271162
pmcid: 2713881
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2002.3.3.171
Toh CH, Wei K-C, Chang C-N, Ng S-H, Wong H-F. Differentiation of primary Central Nervous System Lymphomas and Glioblastomas: comparisons of diagnostic performance of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR Imaging without and with contrast-Leakage correction. Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34:1145–9.
pubmed: 23348763
pmcid: 7964581
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3383
Lee MD, Baird GL, Bell LC, Quarles CC, Boxerman JL. Utility of Percentage Signal Recovery and Baseline Signal in DSC-MRI Optimized for Relative CBV Measurement for Differentiating Glioblastoma, Lymphoma, Metastasis, and Meningioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019;40(9):1445–50. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A6153 .
Anil A, Stokes AM, Chao R, Hu LS, Alhilali L, Karis JP, et al. Identification of single-dose, dual-echo based CBV threshold for fractional tumor burden mapping in recurrent glioblastoma. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1046629.
pubmed: 36733305
pmcid: 9887158
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1046629
Müller SJ, Khadhraoui E, Ganslandt O, Henkes H, Gihr GA. MRI Treatment Response Assessment maps (TRAMs) for differentiating recurrent glioblastoma from radiation necrosis. J Neurooncol. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-024-04573-x .
doi: 10.1007/s11060-024-04573-x
pubmed: 38261142
Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–63.
pubmed: 27330520
pmcid: 4913118
doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Tukey JW. Comparing Individual Means in the analysis of Variance. Biometrics. 1949;5:99.
pubmed: 18151955
doi: 10.2307/3001913
Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen AG, Galanis E, et al. Updated response Assessment Criteria for High-Grade gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1963–72.
pubmed: 20231676
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541
Wen PY, Van Den Bent M, Youssef G, Cloughesy TF, Ellingson BM, Weller M, et al. RANO 2.0: update to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Criteria for High- and low-Grade gliomas in adults. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:5187–99.
pubmed: 37774317
doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01059
Stupp R, Mason WP, Van Den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJB, et al. Radiotherapy plus Concomitant and Adjuvant Temozolomide for Glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:987–96.
pubmed: 15758009
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043330
Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, Barani IJ, Barboriak DP, Baumert BG, et al. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e270–8.
pubmed: 26065612
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70057-4
Okada H, Weller M, Huang R, Finocchiaro G, Gilbert MR, Wick W, et al. Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e534–42.
pubmed: 26545842
pmcid: 4638131
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00088-1
Zikou A, Sioka C, Alexiou GA, Fotopoulos A, Voulgaris S, Argyropoulou MI. Radiation Necrosis, Pseudoprogression, Pseudoresponse, and Tumor recurrence: Imaging challenges for the Evaluation of Treated Gliomas. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018;2018:1–6.
doi: 10.1155/2018/6828396
Alexiou GA, Tsiouris S, Kyritsis AP, Voulgaris S, Argyropoulou MI, Fotopoulos AD. Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis: accuracy of current imaging modalities. J Neurooncol. 2009;95:1–11.
pubmed: 19381441
doi: 10.1007/s11060-009-9897-1
Maiter A, Butteriss D, English P, Lewis J, Hassani A, Bhatnagar P. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of MRI perfusion in differentiating disease progression and pseudoprogression following treatment for glioblastoma in a tertiary UK centre. Clin Radiol. 2022;77:e568–75.
pubmed: 35636976
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2022.04.011
Zhang J, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xiao H, Chen X, Lei Y, et al. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation between glioma recurrence and pseudoprogression: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2022;12:4805–22.
pubmed: 36185045
pmcid: 9511424
doi: 10.21037/qims-22-32
Bodensohn R, Forbrig R, Quach S, Reis J, Boulesteix A-L, Mansmann U, et al. MRI-based contrast clearance analysis shows high differentiation accuracy between radiation-induced reactions and progressive disease after cranial radiotherapy. ESMO Open. 2022;7:100424.
pubmed: 35248822
pmcid: 9058918
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100424
Prager AJ, Martinez N, Beal K, Omuro A, Zhang Z, Young RJ. Diffusion and perfusion MRI to Differentiate Treatment-related changes including pseudoprogression from recurrent tumors in high-Grade Gliomas with histopathologic evidence. Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36:877–85.
pubmed: 25593202
pmcid: 4731220
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4218
Müller SJ, Khadhraoui E, Voit D, Riedel CH, Frahm J, Romero JM, et al. Comparison of EPI DWI and STEAM DWI in early postoperative MRI controls after resection of tumors of the Central Nervous System. Clin Neuroradiol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-023-01261-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s00062-023-01261-7
pubmed: 37796321
pmcid: 10881598
El-Abtah ME, Talati P, Fu M, Chun B, Clark P, Peters A, et al. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy outperforms perfusion in distinguishing between pseudoprogression and disease progression in patients with glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncol Adv. 2022;4:vdac128.
doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdac128
Cuccarini V, Savoldi F, Mardor Y, Last D, Pellegatta S, Mazzi F, et al. Response assessment of GBM during immunotherapy by delayed contrast treatment response assessment maps. Front Neurol. 2024;15:1374737.
pubmed: 38651109
pmcid: 11033465
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1374737
Kowa JY, Millard T, Goldman A, Sharma RK, Attygalle A, Mahalingam P, Marshall K, Welsh L, Li S, Mackinnon A, Rich P, Nicholson E, Iyengar S, El-Sharkawi D, Chau I, Cunningham D, Sharma B. Are treatment response assessment maps (TRAMs) and
Admojo L, Korte J, Anderson N, Phillips C, Caspersz L, Lasocki A. Investigating the role of delayed contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to differentiate radiation necrosis from tumour recurrence in brain metastases after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2023;67:292–8.
pubmed: 36650724
doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.13504
Goulenko V, Madhugiri VS, Bregy A, Recker M, Lipinski L, Fabiano A, et al. Histopathological correlation of brain tumor recurrence vs. radiation effect post-radiosurgery as detected by MRI contrast clearance analysis: a validation study. J Neurooncol. 2024;168:547–53.
pubmed: 38748050
doi: 10.1007/s11060-024-04697-0
Peker S, Samanci Y, Aygun MS, Yavuz F, Erden ME, Nokay AE, et al. The Use of Treatment Response Assessment maps in discriminating between Radiation Effect and Persistent Tumoral Lesion in metastatic brain tumors treated with Gamma Knife Radiosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2021;146:e1134–46.
pubmed: 33253956
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.11.114
Boxerman JL, Quarles CC, Hu LS, Erickson BJ, Gerstner ER, Smits M, et al. Consensus recommendations for a dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI protocol for use in high-grade gliomas. Neuro-Oncol. 2020;22:1262–75.
pubmed: 32516388
pmcid: 7523451
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa141
Danieli L, Riccitelli GC, Distefano D, Prodi E, Ventura E, Cianfoni A, et al. Brain tumor-enhancement visualization and morphometric Assessment: a comparison of MPRAGE, SPACE, and VIBE MRI techniques. Am J Neuroradiol. 2019;40:1140–8.
pubmed: 31221635
pmcid: 7048542
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6096
Panholzer J, Malsiner-Walli G, Grün B, Kalev O, Sonnberger M, Pichler R. Multiparametric analysis combining DSC-MR perfusion and [18F]FET-PET is Superior to a single parameter Approach for differentiation of Progressive Glioma from Radiation Necrosis. Clin Neuroradiol. 2024;34:351–60.
pubmed: 38157019
doi: 10.1007/s00062-023-01372-1
Wang S, Martinez-Lage M, Sakai Y, Chawla S, Kim SG, Alonso-Basanta M, et al. Differentiating Tumor Progression from Pseudoprogression in patients with Glioblastomas using Diffusion Tensor Imaging and Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37:28–36.
pubmed: 26450533
pmcid: 7960225
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4474
De Marco R, Pesaresi A, Bianconi A, Zotta M, Deandreis D, Morana G, et al. A systematic review of amino acid PET imaging in adult-type high-Grade glioma surgery: a neurosurgeon’s perspective. Cancers. 2022;15:90.
pubmed: 36612085
pmcid: 9817716
doi: 10.3390/cancers15010090
Ghosh S, Fletcher NL, Huda P, Houston ZH, Howard CB, Lund ME, et al. Pharmacokinetics and Biodistribution of
pubmed: 36602058
doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00760
Santo G, Laudicella R, Linguanti F, Nappi AG, Abenavoli E, Vergura V, et al. The utility of conventional amino acid PET radiotracers in the Evaluation of Glioma Recurrence also in comparison with MRI. Diagnostics. 2022;12:844.
pubmed: 35453892
pmcid: 9027186
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12040844
Müller SJ, Khadhraoui E, Ernst M, Rohde V, Schatlo B, Malinova V. Differentiation of multiple brain metastases and glioblastoma with multiple foci using MRI criteria. BMC Med Imaging. 2024;24:3.
pubmed: 38166651
pmcid: 10759655
doi: 10.1186/s12880-023-01183-3
Teunissen WHT, Govaerts CW, Kramer MCA, Labrecque JA, Smits M, Dirven L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with brain metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2022;177:121–33.
pubmed: 36377093
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.026
Eraky AM, Beck RT, Treffy RW, Aaronson DM, Hedayat H. Role of Advanced MR Imaging in diagnosis of neurological malignancies: current status and future perspective. J Integr Neurosci. 2023;22:73.
pubmed: 37258452
doi: 10.31083/j.jin2203073
De Godoy LL, Chawla S, Brem S, Mohan S. Taming Glioblastoma in Real Time: integrating Multimodal Advanced Neuroimaging/AI tools towards creating a robust and Therapy Agnostic Model for Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology. Clin Cancer Res. 2023;29:2588–92.
pubmed: 37227179
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-0009
Siakallis L, Sudre CH, Mulholland P, Fersht N, Rees J, Topff L, et al. Longitudinal structural and perfusion MRI enhanced by machine learning outperforms standalone modalities and radiological expertise in high-grade glioma surveillance. Neuroradiology. 2021;63:2047–56.
pubmed: 34047805
pmcid: 8589799
doi: 10.1007/s00234-021-02719-6
Müller SJ, Khadhraoui E, Voit D, Riedel CH, Frahm J, Ernst M. First clinical application of a novel T1 mapping of the whole brain. Neuroradiol J. 2022;35:684–91.
pubmed: 35446175
pmcid: 9626833
doi: 10.1177/19714009221084244