Pseudoprogression in Gliomas: the Use of Advanced MRI for Treatment Decisions

DEGRO practical guideline for central nervous system radiation necrosis part 1: classification and a multistep approach for diagnosis

PURPOSE

The Working Group for Neuro-Oncology of the German Society for Radiation Oncology in cooperation with members of the Neuro-Oncology Working Group of the German Cancer Society aimed to define a practical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of radiation-induced necrosis (RN) of the central nervous system (CNS).

METHODS

Panel members of the DEGRO working group invited experts, participated in a series of conferences, supplemented their clinical experience, performed a literature review, and formulated recommendations for medical treatment of RN including bevacizumab in clinical routine.

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis and treatment of RN requires multidisciplinary structures of care and defined processes. Diagnosis has to be made on an interdisciplinary level with the joint knowledge of a neuroradiologist, radiation oncologist, neurosurgeon, neuropathologist, and neuro-oncologist. A multistep approach as an opportunity to review as many characteristics as possible to improve diagnostic confidence is recommended. Additional information about radiotherapy (RT) techniques is crucial for the diagnosis of RN. Misdiagnosis of untreated and progressive RN can lead to severe neurological deficits. In this practice guideline, we propose a detailed nomenclature of treatment-related changes and a multistep approach for their diagnosis.

Differentiation between glioma recurrence and treatment effects using amide proton transfer imaging: A mini-Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis

Background

Amide proton transfer (APT) imaging as an emerging MRI approach has been used for distinguishing tumor recurrence (TR) and treatment effects (TEs) in glioma patients, but the initial results from recent studies are different.

Aim

The aim of this study is to systematically review and quantify the diagnostic performance of APT in assessing treatment response in patients with post-treatment gliomas.

Methods

A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science was performed to retrieve related original studies. For the single and added value of APT imaging in distinguishing TR from TEs, we calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity by using Bayesian bivariate meta-analyses.

Results

Six studies were included, five of which reported on single APT imaging parameters and four of which reported on multiparametric MRI combined with APT imaging parameters. For single APT imaging parameters, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75–0.92) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.74–0.97). For multiparametric MRI including APT, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85–0.97) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.55–0.97), respectively. In addition, in the three studies reported on both single and added value of APT imaging parameters, the combined imaging parameters further improved diagnostic performance, yielding pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.80–0.97) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.79–0.98), respectively, but the pooled sensitivity was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.65-0.93) and specificity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.61–0.94) for single APT imaging parameters.

Conclusion

APT imaging showed high diagnostic performance in assessing treatment response in patients with post-treatment gliomas, and the addition of APT imaging to other advanced MRI techniques can improve the diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing TR from TE.