MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma

[Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging for high grade astrocytomas: Can cerebral blood volume, peak height, and percentage of signal intensity recovery distinguish between progression and pseudoprogression?]

OBJECTIVES

To study the usefulness of common MRI perfusion parameters for identifying pseudoprogression in high grade astrocytomas.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective case-control study compared the relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), the relative percentage of signal intensity recovery (rPSR), and the relative peak height (rPH) recorded in a sample of 17 cases of anaplastic astrocytomas and gliomas considered to be undergoing pseudoprogression by biopsy or follow-up with those recorded in a sample of histologically similar tumors that were treated and considered to be undergoing progression by histologic study or follow-up. We evaluated the accuracy of these parameters and the correlations among them. Statistical significance was set at P<.05.

RESULTS

The rCBV, rPSR, and rPH were significantly different between the two groups (P=.001). The cutoff values rPH=1.37, rCBV=0.9, and rPSR=99% yielded sensitivity (S)=88% and specificity (Sp)=82.2% for rPH, S=100% and Sp=100% for rCBV, and S=100% and Sp=70.6% for rPSR, respectively. We found negative correlations between rPRS and rPH (-0.76) and between rPRS and rCBV (-0.81) and a high positive correlation between rPH and rCBV (0.87).

CONCLUSION

The variables rPH and rCBV were useful for differentiating between pseudoprogression and true progression in our sample. The variable rPRS was also very sensitive, although the overlap in the values between samples make it less useful a priori.

Treatment-related brain tumor imaging changes: So-called "pseudoprogression" vs. tumor progression: Review and future research opportunities

Background:

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) has a dismal prognosis despite aggressive therapy. Initial diagnosis and measurement of response to treatment is usually determined by measurement of gadolinium-enhanced tumor volume with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Unfortunately, many GBM treatment modalities can cause changes in tumor gadolinium enhancement patterns that mimic tumor progression. The lack of a definitive imaging modality to distinguish posttreatment radiographic imaging changes (PTRIC), including pseudoprogression and radiation necrosis, from true tumor progression presents a major unmet clinical need in the management of GBM patients.

Methods:

The authors discuss current modalities available for differentiating PTRIC and tumor progression, describe development of an animal model of PTRIC, and consider potential molecular and cellular pathways involved in the development of PTRIC.

Results:

An animal model using glioma cells transfected with a luciferase reporter has been developed, and after conventional GBM therapy, this animal model can be evaluated with posttreatment bioluminescence imaging and various MR tumor imaging modalities.

Conclusions:

Posttreatment radiographic changes that mimic tumor progression can influence clinicians to make treatment decisions that are inappropriate for the patient's actual clinical condition. Several imaging modalities have been used to try to distinguish PTRIC and true progression, including conventional MRI, perfusion MRI, MR spectroscopy, and positron emission tomography (PET); however, none of these modalities has consistently and reliably distinguished PTRIC from tumor growth. An animal model using glioma cells transfected with a luciferase reporter may enable mechanistic studies to determine causes and potential treatments for PTRIC.