Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]117392
• Review •
Advances of MR imaging on differential diagnosis between recurrence of glioma and radiation-induced brain injury
LIU Zhi-cheng  YAN Lin-feng  SUN Ying-zhi  CUI Guang-bin 

DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2017.09.012.


[Abstract] It remains challenging to distinguish radiation-induced brain injury from tumor recurrence in treated patients with high grade glioma (HGG) due to overlapping radiologic features. Both may present with new and/or increasing enhancing mass lesions and fulfill standard criteria for progression. Distinguishing radiation-induced brain injury from tumor recurrence is crucial for treatment planning. The purpose of this review is to outline the current MRI researches on differential diagnosis between tumor recurrence and radiation-induced brain injury.
[Keywords] Radiotherapy；Brain injuries；Neoplasm recurrence, local；Glioma

LIU Zhi-cheng Department of Radiology, Tang du Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710038, China

YAN Lin-feng Department of Radiology, Tang du Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710038, China

SUN Ying-zhi Department of Radiology, Tang du Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710038, China

CUI Guang-bin* Department of Radiology, Tang du Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710038, China

*Correspondence to: Cui GB, E-mail: cgbtd@126.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  Financial support from the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi No. 2014JZ2-007
Received  2017-04-24
Accepted  2017-06-22
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2017.09.012
DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2017.09.012.

[1]
Jeon HJ, Kong DS, Park KB, et al. Clinical outcome of concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant temozolomide therapy for glioblastaomas: single-center experience. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2009,111(8): 679-682.
[2]
Mao Y, Yao Y, Zhang LW, et al. Does early postsurgical temozolomide plus concomitant radiochemotherapy regimen have any benefit in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma patients? A multi-center, randomized, parallel, open-label, phase II clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl), 2015,128(20): 2751-2758.
[3]
Abdulla S, Saada J, Johnson G, et al. Tumour progression or pseudoprogression? A review of post-treatment radiological appearances of glioblastoma. Clin Radiol, 2015, 70(11): 1299-1312.
[4]
Yoo RE, Choi SH. Recent application of advanced mr imaging to predict pseudoprogression in high-grade glioma patients. magnetic resonance in medical sciences. J Japan Society Magn Reson Med, 2016, 15(2): 165-177.
[5]
Shin KE, Ahn KJ, Choi HS, et al. DCE and DSC MR perfusion imaging in the differentiation of recurrent tumour from treatment-related changes in patients with glioma. Clin Radiol, 2014, 69(6):e264-272.
[6]
白雪冬，孙夕林，王丹.对胶质瘤术后复发及放射性脑损伤鉴别诊断的影像学研究进展.国际医学放射学杂志, 2013, 36(3): 226-231.
[7]
Chaskis C, Neyns B, Michotte A, et al. Pseudoprogression after radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide for high-grade glioma: clinical observations and working recommendations. Surg Neurol, 2009, 72(4): 423-428.
[8]
Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol, 2010, 28(11):1963-1972.
[9]
Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, et al. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol, 2008, 9(5): 453-461.
[10]
Taal W, Brandsma D, de Bruin HG, et al. Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer, 2008,113(2): 405-410.
[11]
Sanghera P, Perry J, Sahgal A, et al. Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme. Can J Neurol Sci, 2010, 37(1): 36-42.
[12]
Shonka NA, Theeler B, Cahill D, et al. Outcomes for patients with anaplastic astrocytoma treated with chemoradiation, radiation therapy alone or radiation therapy followed by chemotherapy: a retrospective review within the era of temozolomide. J Neurooncol, 2013, 113(2):305-311.
[13]
Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, et al. MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol, 2008, 26(13):2192-2197.
[14]
Young RJ, Gupta A, Shah AD, et al. MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging, 2013, 37(1): 41-49.
[15]
Siu A, Wind JJ, Iorgulescu JB, et al. Radiation necrosis following treatment of high grade glioma: a review of the literature and current understanding. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2012, 154(2): 191-201.
[16]
Motegi H, Kamoshima Y, Terasaka S, et al. IDH1 mutation as a potential novel biomarker for distinguishing pseudoprogression from true progression in patients with glioblastoma treated with temozolomide and radiotherapy. Brain Tumor Pathol, 2013, 30(2):67-72.
[17]
Hygino da Cruz LC Jr, Rodriguez I, Domingues RC, et al. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2011,32(11): 1978-1985.
[18]
Prager AJ, Martinez N, Beal K, et al. Diffusion and perfusion MRI to differentiate treatment-related changes including pseudoprogression from recurrent tumors in high-grade gliomas with histopathologic evidence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2015, 36(5): 877-885.
[19]
Fink JR, Carr RB, Matsusue E, et al. Comparison of 3 Tesla proton MR spectroscopy, MR perfusion and MR diffusion for distinguishing glioma recurrence from posttreatment effects. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2012, 35(1): 56-63.
[20]
Chu HH, Choi SH, Ryoo I, et al. Differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with radiation therapy and concomitant temozolomide: comparison study of standard and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging. Radiology, 2013, 269(3): 831-840.
[21]
Song YS, Choi SH, Park CK, et al. True progression versus pseudoprogression in the treatment of glioblastomas: a comparison study of normalized cerebral blood volume and apparent diffusion coefficient by histogram analysis. Korean J Radiol, 2013, 14(4):662-672.
[22]
Lee WJ, Choi SH, Park CK, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression following concomitant radiotherapy with temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas. Acad Radiol, 2012, 19(11): 1353-1361.
[23]
Zhang H, Ma L, Shu C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion MRI with quantitative ADC measurements in differentiating glioma recurrence from radiation necrosis. J Neurol Sci, 2015, 351(1-2):65-71.
[24]
Cha J, Kim ST, Kim HJ, et al. Analysis of the layering pattern of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiation of radiation necrosis from tumour progression. Eur Radiol, 2013, 23(3): 879-886.
[25]
Wang S, Martinez-Lage M, Sakai Y, et al. Differentiating tumor progression from pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastomas using diffusion tensor imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2015, 59(2): 355-357.
[26]
Hu YC, Yan LF, Wu L, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging of gliomas: efficacy in preoperative grading. Sci Rep, 2014, 4: 7208.
[27]
Chandarana H, Kang SK, Wong S, et al. Diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of renal tumors with histopathologic correlation. Invest Radiol, 2012, 47(12): 688-696.
[28]
Kim HS, Suh CH, Kim N, et al. Histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion for differentiating recurrent tumor from treatment effect in patients with glioblastoma: initial clinical experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2014, 35(3): 490-497.
[29]
Blasel S, Zagorcic A, Jurcoane A, et al. Perfusion MRI in the evaluation of suspected glioblastoma recurrence. J Neuroimaging, 2016, 26(1): 116-123.
[30]
Boxerman JL, Ellingson BM, Jeyapalan S, et al. Longitudinal DSC-MRI for distinguishing tumor recurrence from pseudoprogression in patients with a high-grade glioma. Am J Clin Oncol, 2017, 40(3):228-234.
[31]
Mangla R, Singh G, Ziegelitz D, et al. Changes in relative cerebral blood volume 1 month after radiation-temozolomide therapy can help predict overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology, 2010, 256(2): 575-584.
[32]
Wong KK, Fung SH, New PZ, et al. Technical Pitfalls of SignalTruncation in Perfusion MRI of Glioblastoma. Front Neurol, 2016,7(12): 121.
[33]
Baxter S, Wang ZJ, Joe BN, et al. Timing bolus dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI assessment of hepatic perfusion: initial experience. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2009, 29(6): 1317-1322.
[34]
Yun TJ, Park CK, Kim TM, et al. Glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy: differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression with quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology, 2015, 274(3): 830-840.
[35]
Thomas AA, Arevalo-Perez J, Kaley T, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced T1 MRI perfusion differentiates pseudoprogression from recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol, 2015, 125(1): 183-190.
[36]
钱海峰，孙胜杰，吴晓,等.动态对比增强磁共振在鉴别脑胶质瘤真性进展和假性进展的研究.中华全科医学, 2016, 14(3): 441-444.
[37]
Cebeci H, Aydin O, Ozturk-Isik E, et al. Assesment of perfusion in glial tumors with arterial spin labeling; comparison with dynamic susceptibility contrast method. Eur J Radiol, 2014, 83(10):1914-1919.
[38]
Detre JA, Rao H, Wang DJ, et al. Applications of arterial spin labeled MRI in the brain. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2012, 35(5): 1026-1037.
[39]
Ye J, Bhagat SK, Li H, et al. Differentiation between recurrent gliomas and radiation necrosis using arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging. Exp Ther Med, 2016, 11(6): 2432-2436.
[40]
Choi YJ, Kim HS, Jahng GH, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging. Acta Radiol, 2013,54(4): 448-454.
[41]
Warmuth C, Gunther M, Zimmer C. Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology, 2003, 228(2): 523-532.
[42]
Anbarloui MR, Ghodsi SM, Khoshnevisan A, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance spectroscopy in distinction between radiation necrosis and recurrence of brain tumors. Iran J Neurol, 2015, 14(1):29-34.
[43]
Elias AE, Carlos RC, Smith EA, et al. MR spectroscopy using normalized and non-normalized metabolite ratios for differentiating recurrent brain tumor from radiation injury. Acad Radiol, 2011,18(9): 1101-1108.
[44]
Park JE, Kim HS, Park KJ, et al. Histogram analysis of amide proton transfer imaging to identify contrast-enhancing low-grade brain tumor that mimics high-grade tumor: increased accuracy of MR perfusion. Radiology, 2015, 277(1): 151-161.
[45]
Ma B, Blakeley JO, Hong X, et al. Applying amide proton transfer-weighted MRI to distinguish pseudoprogression from true progression in malignant gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2016,44(2): 456-462.
[46]
Park JE, Kim HS, Park KJ, et al. Pre-and posttreatment glioma: comparison of amide proton transfer imaging with MR spectroscopy for biomarkers of tumor proliferation. Radiology, 2016, 278(2): 514-523.
[47]
Park JE, Kim HS, Goh MJ, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: assessment by using volume-weighted voxel-based multiparametric clustering of MR imaging data in an independent test set. Radiology, 2015, 275(3): 792-802.
[48]
沙琳，范国光，曹倩,等.联合应用PWI与DWI鉴别胶质瘤复发与放射性损伤.中国临床医学影像杂志, 2013(12): 841-845.

PREV Arterial spin labeling application in brain：review of reproducibility and reliability
NEXT Pathophysiology and imaging diagnosis of main pulmonary artery dilatation in patients with chronic mountain sickness
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn