Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Oncology Reports
Published in: Current Oncology Reports 8/2014

01-08-2014 | Neuro-oncology (MR Gilbert, Section Editor)

Post-Treatment Imaging Changes in Primary Brain Tumors

Authors: Barbara J. O’Brien, Rivka R. Colen

Published in: Current Oncology Reports | Issue 8/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Discerning between primary brain tumor progression and treatment-related effect is a significant issue and a major challenge in neuro-oncology. The difficulty in differentiating tumor progression from treatment-related effects has important implications for treatment decisions and prognosis, as well as for clinical trial design and results. Conventional MRI is widely used to assess disease status, but cannot reliably distinguish between tumor progression and treatment-related effects. Several advanced imaging techniques are promising, but have yet to be prospectively validated for this use. This review explores two treatment-related effects, pseudoprogression and radiation necrosis, as well as the concept of pseudoresponse, and highlights several advanced imaging modalities and the evidence supporting their use in differentiating tumor progression from treatment-related effect.
Literature
1.
Kruser TJ, Mehta MP, Robins HI. Pseudoprogression after glioma therapy: a comprehensive review. Expert Rev Neurother. 2013;13(4):389–403.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Peca C et al. Early clinical and neuroradiological worsening after radiotherapy and concomitant temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma: tumour progression or radionecrosis? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2009;111(4):331–4.PubMedCrossRef
3.•
Linhares P et al. Early pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy in glioblastoma patients: the value of RANO evaluation. J Oncol. 2013;2013:690585. A study and discussion of pseudoprogression in the context of tumor response criteria.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
Stupp R et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):987–96.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Sanghera P et al. The concepts, diagnosis and management of early imaging changes after therapy for glioblastomas. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012;24(3):216–27.CrossRef
6.
Siu A 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. discussion 201.CrossRef
7.
Sanghera P et al. Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme. Can J Neurol Sci. 2010;37(1):36–42.PubMed
8.
Roldan GB et al. Population-based study of pseudoprogression after chemoradiotherapy in GBM. Can J Neurol Sci. 2009;36(5):617–22.PubMed
9.
Brandes AA 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):2192–7.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Hygino da Cruz Jr LC. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(11):1978–85.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Brandsma D et al. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(5):453–61.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Chamberlain MC et al. Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2007;82(1):81–3.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Taal W, et al. The incidence of pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemo-radiation with temozolomide. J Clin Oncol, 2007. 25: (18_suppl 2009).
14.
Wen PY et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1963–72.PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
de Wit MC et al. Immediate post-radiotherapy changes in malignant glioma can mimic tumor progression. Neurology. 2004;63(3):535–7.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Taal W et al. Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer. 2008;113(2):405–10.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hegi ME et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):997–1003.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Motegi H 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.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Gonzalez J et al. Effect of bevacizumab on radiation necrosis of the brain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67(2):323–6.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Torcuator R et al. Initial experience with bevacizumab treatment for biopsy confirmed cerebral radiation necrosis. J Neurooncol. 2009;94(1):63–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Wong ET et al. Bevacizumab reverses cerebral radiation necrosis. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(34):5649–50.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Levin VA et al. Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab therapy for radiation necrosis of the central nervous system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(5):1487–95.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
24.
Shah AH et al. Discriminating radiation necrosis from tumor progression in gliomas: a systematic review what is the best imaging modality? J Neurooncol. 2013;112(2):141–52.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Ruben JD et al. Cerebral radiation necrosis: incidence, outcomes, and risk factors with emphasis on radiation parameters and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(2):499–508.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Marks JE et al. Cerebral radionecrosis: incidence and risk in relation to dose, time, fractionation and volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1981;7(2):243–52.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kumar AJ et al. Malignant gliomas: MR imaging spectrum of radiation therapy- and chemotherapy-induced necrosis of the brain after treatment. Radiology. 2000;217(2):377–84.PubMedCrossRef
28.•
Verma N et al. Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: a review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15(5):515–34. A discussion of structural and functional imaging modalities as they relate to the differentiation of tumor recurrence from treatment-related changes.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
29.
Sundgren PC et al. Differentiation of recurrent brain tumor versus radiation injury using diffusion tensor imaging in patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions. Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(9):1131–42.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Rock JP et al. Associations among magnetic resonance spectroscopy, apparent diffusion coefficients, and image-guided histopathology with special attention to radiation necrosis. Neurosurgery. 2004;54(5):1111–7. discussion 1117–9.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Le Bihan D et al. Diffusion tensor imaging: concepts and applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(4):534–46.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Aronen HJ, Perkio J. Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI of gliomas. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2002;12(4):501–23.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Covarrubias DJ, Rosen BR, Lev MH. Dynamic magnetic resonance perfusion imaging of brain tumors. Oncologist. 2004;9(5):528–37.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Jain RK. Tumor angiogenesis and accessibility: role of vascular endothelial growth factor. Semin Oncol. 2002;29(6 Suppl 16):3–9.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Ellika SK et al. Role of perfusion CT in glioma grading and comparison with conventional MR imaging features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(10):1981–7.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Jain RK. Normalizing tumor vasculature with anti-angiogenic therapy: a new paradigm for combination therapy. Nat Med. 2001;7(9):987–9.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Jain RK, Tong RT, Munn LL. Effect of vascular normalization by antiangiogenic therapy on interstitial hypertension, peritumor edema, and lymphatic metastasis: insights from a mathematical model. Cancer Res. 2007;67(6):2729–35.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
38.
Gahramanov S et al. Improved perfusion MR imaging assessment of intracerebral tumor blood volume and antiangiogenic therapy efficacy in a rat model with ferumoxytol. Radiology. 2011;261(3):796–804.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
39.
Gahramanov S et al. Potential for differentiation of pseudoprogression from true tumor progression with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using ferumoxytol vs. gadoteridol: a pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(2):514–23.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
40.
Gahramanov S et al. Pseudoprogression of glioblastoma after chemo- and radiation therapy: diagnosis by using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with ferumoxytol versus gadoteridol and correlation with survival. Radiology. 2013;266(3):842–52.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
41.
Tsuyuguchi N et al. Methionine positron emission tomography for differentiation of recurrent brain tumor and radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery–in malignant glioma. Ann Nucl Med. 2004;18(4):291–6.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Rachinger W et al. Positron emission tomography with O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of recurrent gliomas. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(3):505–11. discussion 505–11.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Li DL et al. (1)(1)C-methionine and (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT in the evaluation of patients with suspected primary and residual/recurrent gliomas. Chin Med J (Engl). 2012;125(1):91–6.
44.
Van Laere K et al. Direct comparison of 18F-FDG and 11C-methionine PET in suspected recurrence of glioma: sensitivity, inter-observer variability and prognostic value. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(1):39–51.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Chung JK et al. Usefulness of 11C-methionine PET in the evaluation of brain lesions that are hypo- or isometabolic on 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29(2):176–82.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Floeth FW et al. Multimodal metabolic imaging of cerebral gliomas: positron emission tomography with [18F]fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Neurosurg. 2005;102(2):318–27.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zeng QS et al. Distinction between recurrent glioma and radiation injury using magnetic resonance spectroscopy in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(1):151–8.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Prat R et al. Relative value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy, magnetic resonance perfusion, and 2-(18F) fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography for detection of recurrence or grade increase in gliomas. J Clin Neurosci. 2010;17(1):50–3.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Matsusue E et al. Distinction between glioma progression and post-radiation change by combined physiologic MR imaging. Neuroradiology. 2010;52(4):297–306.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Verma R et al. Multiparametric tissue characterization of brain neoplasms and their recurrence using pattern classification of MR images. Acad Radiol. 2008;15(8):966–77.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
51.
Hu X et al. Support vector machine multiparametric MRI identification of pseudoprogression from tumor recurrence in patients with resected glioblastoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33(2):296–305.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
52.
Blanchet L et al. Discrimination between metastasis and glioblastoma multiforme based on morphometric analysis of MR images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(1):67–73.PubMed
53.
Georgiadis P et al. Improving brain tumor characterization on MRI by probabilistic neural networks and non-linear transformation of textural features. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2008;89(1):24–32.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Georgiadis P et al. Enhancing the discrimination accuracy between metastases, gliomas and meningiomas on brain MRI by volumetric textural features and ensemble pattern recognition methods. Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;27(1):120–30.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Zacharaki EI et al. Classification of brain tumor type and grade using MRI texture and shape in a machine learning scheme. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62(6):1609–18.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
56.
Kassner A, Thornhill RE. Texture analysis: a review of neurologic MR imaging applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(5):809–16.PubMedCrossRef
57.•
Thompson EM, Frenkel EP, Neuwelt EA. The paradoxical effect of bevacizumab in the therapy of malignant gliomas. Neurology. 2011;76(1):87–93. A discussion of tumor progression in the context of antiangiogenic agents.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
58.
Wang Y et al. Biological activity of bevacizumab, a humanized anti-VEGF antibody in vitro. Angiogenesis. 2004;7(4):335–45.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Pope WB, Young JR, Ellingson BM. Advances in MRI assessment of gliomas and response to anti-VEGF therapy. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2011;11(3):336–44.
60.
Du R et al. HIF1alpha induces the recruitment of bone marrow-derived vascular modulatory cells to regulate tumor angiogenesis and invasion. Cancer Cell. 2008;13(3):206–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
61.
Rubenstein JL et al. Anti-VEGF antibody treatment of glioblastoma prolongs survival but results in increased vascular cooption. Neoplasia. 2000;2(4):306–14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
62.
Kunkel P et al. Inhibition of glioma angiogenesis and growth in vivo by systemic treatment with a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. Cancer Res. 2001;61(18):6624–8.PubMed
63.
Sawlani RN et al. Glioblastoma: a method for predicting response to antiangiogenic chemotherapy by using MR perfusion imaging–pilot study. Radiology. 2010;255(2):622–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
64.
Chen W et al. Predicting treatment response of malignant gliomas to bevacizumab and irinotecan by imaging proliferation with [18F] fluorothymidine positron emission tomography: a pilot study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(30):4714–21.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Post-Treatment Imaging Changes in Primary Brain Tumors
Authors
Barbara J. O’Brien
Rivka R. Colen
Publication date
01-08-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Oncology Reports / Issue 8/2014
Print ISSN: 1523-3790
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6269
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-014-0397-x

Other articles of this Issue 8/2014

Current Oncology Reports 8/2014 Go to the issue

Pediatric Oncology (S Epelman, Section Editor)

Advances in the Management of Low-Grade Gliomas

Invited Commentary

Cardiotoxicity of Antineoplastic Agents: What Is the Present and Future Role for Imaging?

Invited Commentary

Revisiting Oxaliplatin-based Regimens for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Neuro-oncology (MR Gilbert, Section Editor)

Imaging Mimics of Primary Malignant Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS)

Sarcomas (SR Patel, Section Editor)

Advances in Therapy for Pediatric Sarcomas
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits