Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Criteria for Gliomas: Practical Approach Using Conventional and Advanced Techniques

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Ostrom QT,
   2. Gittleman H,
   3. Truitt G, et al

   . CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2011–2015. Neuro Oncol 2018;20:iv1–86 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noy131 pmid:30445539

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Ostrom QT,
   2. Gittleman H,
   3. Stetson L, et al

   . Epidemiology of intracranial gliomas. In: Intracranial Gliomas: Part I-Surgery. Vol 30. Basel: Karger Publishers; 2018:1–11
3. 3.↵
   1. Ostrom QT,
   2. Cote DJ,
   3. Ascha M, et al

   . Adult glioma incidence and survival by race or ethnicity in the United States from 2000 to 2014. JAMA Oncol 2018;4:1254–62 doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1789 pmid:29931168

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. van Linde ME,
   2. Brahm CG,
   3. de Witt Hamer PC, et al

   . Treatment outcome of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: a retrospective multicenter analysis. J Neurooncol 2017;135:183–92 doi:10.1007/s11060-017-2564-z pmid:28730289

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Lacroix M,
   2. Toms SA

   . Maximum safe resection of glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:727–28 doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.53.2788 pmid:24516027

   FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Stupp R,
   2. Mason WP,
   3. van den Bent MJ, et al

   . Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005;352:987–96 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043330 pmid:15758009

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Wick W,
   2. Gorlia T,
   3. Bendszus M, et al

   . Lomustine and bevacizumab in progressive glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1954–63 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1707358 pmid:29141164

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Lim M,
   2. Xia Y,
   3. Bettegowda C, et al

   . Current state of immunotherapy for glioblastoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018;15:422–42 doi:10.1038/s41571-018-0003-5 pmid:29643471

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Macdonald DR,
   2. Cascino TL,
   3. Schold SC, et al

   . Response criteria for Phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1277–80 doi:10.1200/JCO.1990.8.7.1277 pmid:2358840

   Abstract
10. 10.↵
    1. Wen PY,
    2. Macdonald DR,
    3. 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 doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 pmid:20231676

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Cabrera AR,
    2. Kirkpatrick JP,
    3. Fiveash JB, et al

    . Radiation therapy for glioblastoma: executive summary of an American Society for Radiation Oncology Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2016;6:217–25 doi:10.1016/j.prro.2016.03.007 pmid:27211230

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Cherry P,
    2. Duxbury

    1. Conway J,
    2. Bragg CM

    . Treatment planning and computer systems. In: Cherry P, Duxbury A. Practical Radiotherapy Physics and Equipment. London: Greenwich Medical Media; 1998:161–95
13. 13.↵
    1. Lasocki A,
    2. Gaillard F

    . Non-contrast-enhancing tumor: a new frontier in glioblastoma research. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:758–65 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6025 pmid:30948373

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Holdhoff M,
    2. Ye X,
    3. Piotrowski AF, et al

    . The consistency of neuropathological diagnoses in patients undergoing surgery for suspected recurrence of glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2019;141:347–54 doi:10.1007/s11060-018-03037-3 pmid:30414096

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Kim JH,
    2. Bae Kim Y,
    3. Han JH, et al

    . Pathologic diagnosis of recurrent glioblastoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2012;36:620–68 doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e318246040c pmid:22441548

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Abbasi AW,
    2. Westerlaan HE,
    3. Holtman GA, et al

    . Incidence of tumour progression and pseudoprogression in high-grade gliomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Neuroradiol 2018;28:401–11 doi:10.1007/s00062-017-0584-x pmid:28466127

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. van West SE,
    2. de Bruin HG,
    3. van de Langerijt B, et al

    . Incidence of pseudoprogression in low-grade gliomas treated with radiotherapy. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:719–25 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now194 pmid:28453748

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Melguizo-Gavilanes I,
    2. Bruner JM,
    3. Guha-Thakurta N, et al

    . Characterization of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: is histology the gold standard? J Neurooncol 2015;123:141–50 doi:10.1007/s11060-015-1774-5 pmid:25894594

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Taal W,
    2. Brandsma D,
    3. de Bruin HG, et al

    . The incidence of pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemo-radiation with temozolomide. Cancer 2008;113:405–10 doi:10.1002/cncr.23562 pmid:18484594

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Brandes AA,
    2. Franceschi E,
    3. 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 doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14.8163 pmid:18445844

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Kumar AJ,
    2. Leeds NE,
    3. Fuller GN, et al

    . Malignant gliomas: MR imaging spectrum of radiation therapy- and chemotherapy-induced necrosis of the brain after treatment. Radiology 2000;217:377–84 doi:10.1148/radiology.217.2.r00nv36377 pmid:11058631

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Okada H,
    2. Weller M,
    3. Huang R, et al

    . Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO Working Group. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:e534–42 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00088-1 pmid:26545842

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Reardon DA,
    2. Wen PY,
    3. Desjardins A, et al

    . Glioblastoma multiforme: an emerging paradigm of anti-VEGF therapy. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2008;8:541–53 doi:10.1517/14712598.8.4.541 pmid:18352856

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. van den Bent MJ,
    2. Wefel JS,
    3. Schiff D, et al

    . Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diffuse low-grade gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:583–93 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70057-2 pmid:21474379

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Hu LS,
    2. Baxter LC,
    3. 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 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1377 pmid:19056837

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    1. Barajas RF,
    2. Chang JS,
    3. 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 doi:10.1148/radiol.2532090007 pmid:19789240

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Xu JL,
    2. Shi DP,
    3. Dou S, et al

    . Distinction between postoperative recurrent glioma and delayed radiation injury using MR perfusion weighted imaging. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2011;55:587–94 doi:10.1111/j.1754-9485.2011.02315.x pmid:22141606

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Young RJ,
    2. Gupta A,
    3. Shah AD, et al

    . MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging 2013;37:41–49 doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.02.016 pmid:23151413

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Blasel S,
    2. Zagorcic A,
    3. Jurcoane A, et al

    . Perfusion MRI in the evaluation of suspected glioblastoma recurrence. J Neuroimaging 2016;26:116–23 doi:10.1111/jon.12247 pmid:25907688

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Patel P,
    2. Baradaran H,
    3. Delgado D, 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 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now148 pmid:27502247

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Suh CH,
    2. Kim HS,
    3. 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 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3634 pmid:23828115

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    1. Thomas AA,
    2. Arevalo-Perez J,
    3. Kaley T, et al

    . Dynamic contrast enhanced T1 MRI perfusion differentiates pseudoprogression from recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2015;125:183–90 doi:10.1007/s11060-015-1893-z pmid:26275367

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Yun TJ,
    2. Park CK,
    3. 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;274:830–40 doi:10.1148/radiol.14132632 pmid:25333475

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Choi YJ,
    2. Kim HS,
    3. Jahng G-H, et al

    . Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging. Acta Radiol 2013;54:448–54 doi:10.1177/0284185112474916 pmid:23592805

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Deibler AR,
    2. Pollock JM,
    3. Kraft RA, et al

    . Arterial spin-labeling in routine clinical practice, Part 1: technique and artifacts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1228–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1030 pmid:18372417

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    1. Zhang H,
    2. Ma L,
    3. Wang Q, et al

    . Role of magnetic resonance spectroscopy for the differentiation of recurrent glioma from radiation necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:2181–89 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.018 pmid:25452098

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Reimer C,
    2. Deike K,
    3. Graf M, et al

    . Differentiation of pseudoprogression and real progression in glioblastoma using ADC parametric response maps. PLoS One 2017;12:e0174620 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174620 pmid:28384170

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Kazda T,
    2. Bulik M,
    3. Pospisil P, et al

    . Advanced MRI increases the diagnostic accuracy of recurrent glioblastoma: Single institution thresholds and validation of MR spectroscopy and diffusion weighted MR imaging. NeuroImage Clin 2016;11:316–21 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.02.016 pmid:27298760

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Prager AJ,
    2. Martinez N,
    3. 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;36:877–85 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4218 pmid:25593202

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    1. Mong S,
    2. Ellingson BM,
    3. Nghiemphu PL, et al

    . Persistent diffusion-restricted lesions in bevacizumab-treated malignant gliomas are associated with improved survival compared with matched controls. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1763–70 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3053 pmid:22538078

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
41. 41.↵
    1. Nguyen HS,
    2. Milbach N,
    3. Hurrell SL, et al

    . Progressing bevacizumab-induced diffusion restriction is associated with coagulative necrosis surrounded by viable tumor and decreased overall survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:2201–08 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4898 pmid:27492073

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    1. Law I,
    2. Albert NL,
    3. Arbizu J, et al

    . Joint EANM/EANO/RANO practice guidelines/SNMMI procedure standards for imaging of gliomas using PET with radiolabelled amino acids and [18F]FDG: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:540–57 doi:10.1007/s00259-018-4207-9 pmid:30519867

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. La Fougère C,
    2. Suchorska B,
    3. Bartenstein P, et al

    . Molecular imaging of gliomas with PET: opportunities and limitations. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:806–19 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nor054 pmid:21757446

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Parent EE,
    2. Sharma A,
    3. Jain M

    . Amino acid PET imaging of glioma. Curr Radiol Rep 2019;7:14 doi:10.1007/s40134-019-0324-x

    CrossRef
45. 45.↵
    1. Galldiks N,
    2. Law I,
    3. Pope WB, et al

    . The use of amino acid PET and conventional MRI for monitoring of brain tumor therapy. Neuroimage Clin 2016;13:386–94 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.12.020 pmid:28116231

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Nihashi T,
    2. Dahabreh IJ,
    3. Terasawa T

    . Diagnostic accuracy of PET for recurrent glioma diagnosis: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:944–50 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3324 pmid:23124638

    Abstract/FREE Full Text