Diffusion and Perfusion MRI to Differentiate Treatment-Related Changes Including Pseudoprogression from Recurrent Tumors in High-Grade Gliomas with Histopathologic Evidence

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Wen PY,
   3. Macdonald DR,
   4. Reardon DA, et al

   . Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963–72

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Hygino da Cruz LC Jr.,
   3. Rodriguez I,
   4. Domingues RC, et al

   . Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1978–85

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Brandes AA,
   3. Franceschi E,
   4. 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;26:2192–97

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Hopewell JW,
   3. Calvo W,
   4. Jaenke R, et al

   . Microvasculature and radiation damage. Recent Results Cancer Res 1993;130:1–16

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Sugahara T,
   3. Korogi Y,
   4. Kochi M, et al

   . Correlation of MR imaging-determined cerebral blood volume maps with histologic and angiographic determination of vascularity of gliomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:1479–86

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Oh BC,
   3. Pagnini PG,
   4. Wang MY, et al

   . Stereotactic radiosurgery: adjacent tissue injury and response after high-dose single fraction radiation. Part I. Histology, imaging, and molecular events. Neurosurgery 2007;60:31–44; discussion 44–45

   PubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Wesseling P,
   3. Ruiter DJ,
   4. Burger PC

   . Angiogenesis in brain tumors; pathobiological and clinical aspects. J Neurooncol 1997;32:253–65

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Brandsma D,
   3. van den Bent MJ

   . Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse in the treatment of gliomas. Curr Opin Neurol 2009;22:633–38

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Young RJ,
   3. Gupta A,
   4. Shah AD, et al

   . MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging 2013;37:41–49

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Young RJ,
    3. Gupta A,
    4. Shah AD, et al

    . Potential utility of conventional MRI signs in diagnosing pseudoprogression in glioblastoma. Neurology 2011;76:1918–24

    CrossRef
11. 11.↵
    2. Brandsma D,
    3. Stalpers L,
    4. Taal W, et al

    . Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:453–61

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Hein PA,
    3. Eskey CJ,
    4. Dunn JF, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging in the follow-up of treated high-grade gliomas: tumor recurrence versus radiation injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:201–09

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Mangla R,
    3. Kolar B,
    4. Zhu T, et al

    . Percentage signal recovery derived from MR dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging is useful to differentiate common enhancing malignant lesions of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1004–10

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Roa W,
    3. Brasher PM,
    4. Bauman G, et al

    . Abbreviated course of radiation therapy in older patients with glioblastoma multiforme: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1583–88

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Clarke JL,
    3. Iwamoto FM,
    4. Sul J, et al

    . Randomized phase II trial of chemoradiotherapy followed by either dose-dense or metronomic temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3861–67

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Cha S,
    3. Knopp EA,
    4. Johnson G, et al

    . Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2002;223:11–29

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    2. Wetzel SG,
    3. Cha S,
    4. Johnson G, et al

    . Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology 2002;224:797–803

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Young R,
    3. Babb J,
    4. Law M, et al

    . Comparison of region-of-interest analysis with three different histogram analysis methods in the determination of perfusion metrics in patients with brain gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:1053–63

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Rosen BR,
    3. Belliveau JW,
    4. Vevea JM, et al

    . Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med 1990;14:249–65

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Barajas RF,
    3. Chang JS,
    4. Sneed PK, et al

    . Distinguishing recurrent intra-axial metastatic tumor from radiation necrosis following gamma knife radiosurgery using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:367–72

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Young RJ,
    4. Babb JS, et al

    . Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2008;247:490–98

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Al-Okaili RN,
    3. Krejza J,
    4. Woo JH, et al

    . Intraaxial brain masses: MR imaging-based diagnostic strategy—initial experience. Radiology 2007;243:539–50

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Asao C,
    3. Korogi Y,
    4. Kitajima M, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging of radiation-induced brain injury for differentiation from tumor recurrence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1455–60

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Chu HH,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. 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;29:831–40
25. 25.↵
    2. Cha J,
    3. Kim ST,
    4. 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;23:879–86

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Barajas RF Jr.,
    3. Chang JS,
    4. Segal MR, et al

    . Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009;253:486–96

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Gasparetto EL,
    3. Pawlak MA,
    4. Patel SH, et al

    . Posttreatment recurrence of malignant brain neoplasm: accuracy of relative cerebral blood volume fraction in discriminating low from high malignant histologic volume fraction. Radiology 2009;250:887–96

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Hu LS,
    3. Baxter LC,
    4. Smith KA, et al

    . Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:552–58

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    2. Fink JR,
    3. Carr RB,
    4. 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;35:56–63

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Bobek-Billewicz B,
    3. Stasik-Pres G,
    4. Majchrzak H, et al

    . Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using perfusion, diffusion-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopy. Folia Neuropathol 2010;48:81–92

    PubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Chamberlain MC,
    3. Glantz MJ,
    4. Chalmers L, et al

    . Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2007;82:81–83

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Kong DS,
    3. Kim ST,
    4. Kim EH, et al

    . Diagnostic dilemma of pseudoprogression in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastomas: the role of assessing relative cerebral blood flow volume and oxygen-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:382–87

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    2. Suh CH,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Choi YJ, et al

    . Prediction of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastomas using the initial and final area under the curves ratio derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:2278–86

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    2. Cha J,
    3. Kim ST,
    4. Kim HJ, et al

    . Differentiation of tumor progression from pseudoprogression in patients with posttreatment glioblastoma using multiparametric histogram analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1309–17

    Abstract/FREE Full Text