Advanced magnetic resonance techniques in early differentiation of pseudoprogression versus progression in the patients with glioblastoma multiforme

Jelena Mihailović; Marko  Daković

doi:10.2298/VSP170114108M

Jelena Mihailović Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Department for Diagnostic Radiology, Belgrade, Serbia
Marko Daković University of Belgrade, Faculty for Physical Chemistry, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP170114108M

Keywords: glioblastoma;, disease progression;, drug therapy;, radiotherapy;, surgical procedures, operative;, magnetic resonance imaging;, spectrum analysis;, diagnosis, differential.

Abstract

Background/Aim. The diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme progression may be confounded by a phenomena termed pseudoprogression (PSP) and pseudoresponse (RCT) which has become more common with the adoption of radiation therapy with concurrent and adjuvant application of temozolomide (CRT). Distinguishing of these phenomena is based on the follow-up scans since no single imaging method or technique is yet capable of performing their discrimination. In this study, we evaluated the dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC perfusion) imaging and magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy to predict the prognosis and time to progression in the patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Methods. Fourty patients with primary glioblastoma multiforme were included in the analysis. The patients were examined in 3rd week after surgery and 10th week after the beginning of CRT. The MR exams were performed using the 1.5 T MR scanner (Avanto; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). The maps of perfusion parameters and time-to-peak (TTP) parameter were calculated using the DPTools v3.79 software. The 3D CSI PRESS MR spectroscopy was performed in the area corresponding to the contrast enhancement on the T1W images. Results. Thirty-two of the 40 patients had progressive disease and 8 had pseudoprogression. Progressive disease showed the mean time of the peak values of 33 ± 7 s in 3rd and 30 ± 5 s in 10th week with no statistical significance between these two periods (p > 0.05). The patients with pseudoprogression showed the mean time of the peak values of 32 ± 8 s in 3rd week and 43 ± 9 s in 10th week; it was statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was which favors better response to therapy. The spectroscopy results showed presence of glycine peak at 3.56 ppm in 6 patients with progressive disease which was not seen on spectra with pseudoprogression. Conclusion. The observed significant differences in the TTP values for PSP and RCT can provide basis for distinguishing two entities. The presence of glycine peak in the MR spectra could be a marker of RCT.

References

Easaw JC, Mason WP, Perry J, Laperriere N, Eisenstat DD, del Maestro R, et al. Canadian recommendations for the treatment of recurrent or progressive glioblastoma multiforme. Curr. Oncol 2011; 18(3): e126‒36.

Carlsson SK, Brothers SP, Wahlestedt C. Emerging treatment strategies for glioblastoma multiforme. EMBO Mol Med 2014; 6(11): 1359‒70.

Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr, Cairncross JG. Re-sponse criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8(7): 1277‒80.

Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen GA, Galanis E, 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.

Gahramanov S, Raslan AM, Muldoon LL, Hamilton BE, Rooney WD, Varallyay CG, 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.

Morris JG, Grattan-Smith P, Panegyres PK, O'Neill P, Soo YS, Langlands AO. Delayed cerebral radiation necrosis. Quarterly J Med 1994; 87(2): 119‒29.

Hygino da Cruz LC Jr, Rodriguez I, Domingues RC, Gasparetto EL, Sorensen AG. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: im-aging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32(11): 1978‒85.

Chu HH, Choi SH, Ryoo I, Kim SC, Yeom JA, Shin H, et al. Dif-ferentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in gli-oblastoma treated with radiation therapy and concomitant temozolomide: comparison study of standard and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging. Radiology 2013; 269(3): 831‒40.

Suh CH, Kim HS, Choi YJ, Kim N, Kim SJ. Prediction of pseu-doprogression 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(12): 2278‒86.

Barajas RF Jr, Chang JS, Segal MR, Parsa AT, McDermott MW, Berger MS, et al. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radia-tion therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009; 253(2): 486‒96.

Verma N, Cowperthwaite MC, Burnett MG, Markey MK. Differ-entiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: a review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies. Neuro Oncol 2013; 15(5): 515‒34.

Song YS, Choi SH, Park CK, Yi KS, Lee WJ, Yun TJ, et al. True progression versus pseudoprogression in the treatment of glio-blastomas: a comparison study of normalized cerebral blood volume and apparent diffusion coefficient by histogram analy-sis. Korean J Radiol 2013; 14(4): 662‒72.

Kong DS, Kim ST, Kim EH, Lim DH, Kim WS, Suh YL, 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(2): 382‒7.

Young RJ, Gupta A, Shah AD, Graber JJ, Chan TA, Zhang Z, et al. MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in pa-tients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging 2013; 37(1): 41‒9.

Mangla R, Singh G, Ziegelitz D, Milano MT, Korones DN, Zhong J, et al. Changes in relative cerebral blood volume 1 month af-ter radiation-temozolomide therapy can help predict overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology 2010; 256(2): 575‒84.

Hu LS, Eschbacher JM, Heiserman JE, Dueck AC, Shapiro WR, Liu S, et al. Reevaluating the imaging definition of tumor progression: Perfusion MRI quantifies recurrent glioblastoma tumor fraction, pseudoprogression, and radiation necrosis to predict survival. Neuro Ooncol 2012; 14(7): 919‒30.

Baek HJ, Kim HS, Kim N, Choi YJ, Kim YJ. Percent change of perfusion skewness and kurtosis: A potential imaging bi-omarker for early treatment response in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastomas. Radiology 2012; 264(3): 834‒43.

Cha J, Kim ST, Kim HJ, Kim B, Kim JK, Lee JY, et al. Differen-tiation of Tumor Progression from Pseudoprogression in Pa-tients with Posttreatment Glioblastoma Using Multiparamet-ric Histogram Analysis. Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35(7): 1309‒17.

Tsien C, Galbán CJ, Chenevert TL, Johnson TD, Hamstra DA, Sundgren PC, et al. Parametric response map as an imaging bi-omarker to distinguish progression from pseudoprogression in high-grade glioma. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(13): 2293‒920.

Nasel C, Azizi A, Veintimilla A, Mallek R, Schindler E. A standardized method of generating time-to-peak perfusion maps in dynamic-susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imag-ing. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000; 21(7): 1195‒8.

Neumann-Haefelin T, Wittsack HJ, Wenserski F, Siebler M, Seitz RJ, Mödder U, et al. Diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI. The DWI/PWI mismatch region in acute stroke. Stroke 1999; 30(8): 1591‒7.

Brandes AA, Tosoni A, Spagnolli F, Frezza G, Leonardi M, Calbucci F, et al. Disease progression or pseudoprogression af-ter concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment: Pitfalls in neu-rooncology. Neuro Oncol 2008; 10(3): 361‒7.

Sundgren PC. MR Spectroscopy in Radiation Injury. Am J Neu-roradiol 2009; 30(8): 1469‒76.

Ye ZC, Sontheimer H. Glioma cells release excitotoxic concen-trations of glutamate. Cancer Res 1999; 59(17): 4383‒91.

Ye ZC, Rothstein JD, Sontheimer H. Compromised glutamate transport in human glioma cells: Reduction-mislocalization of sodium-dependent glutamate transporters and enhanced activ-ity of cystine-glutamate exchange. J Neurosci 1999; 19(24): 10767‒77.

Righi V, Andronesi OC, Mintzopoulos D, Black PM, Tzika AA. High-resolution magic angle spinning magnetic resonance spectroscopy detects glycine as a biomarker in brain tumors. Int J Oncol 2010; 36(2): 301‒6.

Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Tomiguchi S, Shigematsu Y, Ikushima I, Kira T, et al Posttherapeutic intraaxial brain tumor: the value of perfusion-sensitive contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differ-entiating tumor recurrence from nonneoplastic contrast-enhancing tissue. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000; 21(5): 901‒9.

Leimgruber A, Ostermann S, Yeon EJ, Buff E, Maeder PP, Stupp R, et al. Perfusion and diffusion MRI of glioblastoma pro-gression in a four-year prospective temozolomide clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 64: 869‒75.

Gahramanov S, Muldoon LL, Varallyay CG, Li X, Kraemer DF, Fu R, et al. Pseudoprogression of glioblastoma after chemo- and radiation therapy: Diagnosis by using dynamic susceptibil-ity-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with ferumoxytol versus gadoteridol and correlation with survival. Radiology 2013; 266(3): 842‒52.

Cha S, Yang L, Johnson G, Lai A, Chen MH, Tihan T, et al. Comparison of Microvascular Permeability Measurements, Ktrans, Determined with Conventional Steady-State T1-Weighted and First-Pass T2*-Weighted MR Imaging Methods in Gliomas and Meningiomas. Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27(2): 409‒17.

Law M, Yang S, Babb JS, Knopp EA, Golfinos JG, Zagzag D, et al. Comparison of Cerebral Blood Volume and Vascular Per-meability from Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced Perfusion MR Imaging with Glioma Grade. AJNR Am J Neu-roradiol 2004; 25(5): 746‒55.

Rempp KA, Brix G, Wenz F, Becker CR, Gückel F, Lorenz WJ. Quantification of regional cerebral blood flow and volume with dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1994; 193(3): 637‒41.

Lehnhardt F, Bock C, Röhn G, Ernestus R, Hoehn M. Metabolic differences between primary and recurrent human brain tu-mors: A 1H NMR spectroscopic investigation. NMR Biomed 2005; 18(6): 371‒82.

Ken S, Vieillevigne L, Franceries X, Simon L, Supper C, Lotterie JA, et al. Integration method of 3D MR spectroscopy into treatment planning system for glioblastoma IMRT dose paint-ing with integrated simultaneous boost. Radiat Oncol 2013;8: 1.

Chinnaiyan P, Kensicki E, Bloom G, Prabhu A, Sarcar B, Kahali S, et al. The metabolomic signature of malignant glioma reflects accelerated anabolic metabolism. Cancer Res 2012; 72(22): 5878‒88.

Hattingen E, Lanfermann H, Quick J, Franz K, Zanella FE, Pilatus U. 1H MR spectroscopic imaging with short and long echo time to discriminate glycine in glial tumours. MAGMA 2009; 22(1): 33‒41.

Tugnoli V, Tosi MR, Barbarella G, Bertoluzza A, Ricci R, Trevis-an C. In vivo 1H MRS and in vitro multinuclear MR study of human brain tumors. Anticancer Res. 1996; 16(5A): 2891‒9.

Jain M, Nilsson R, Sharma S, Madhusudhan N, Kitami T, Souza AL, et al. Metabolite profiling identifies a key role for glycine in rapid cancer cell proliferation. Science 2012; 336(6084): 1040‒4.