Centrally Reduced Diffusion Sign for Differentiation between Treatment-Related Lesions and Glioma Progression: A Validation Study

Differentiation Between Radiation Necrosis and True Tumour Progression After Radiotherapy to Intracranial Metastases

Differentiating between radiation necrosis and true tumour progression after radiotherapy is challenging due to overlapping imaging appearances. This review outlines useful techniques and imaging features for making this distinction, as well as potential pitfalls. Both radiation necrosis and true tumour progression commonly manifest as peripherally enhancing lesions on post-contrast T1-weighted imaging, but the enhancing rim should be thin in radiation necrosis, while more discrete nodular enhancement suggests active tumour. Other features on post-contrast MRI that suggest radiation necrosis include enhancing lesions across anatomical boundaries, clustering of enhancing lesions and a change in lesion shape. Central diffusion restriction corresponding to the central necrotic area favours radiation necrosis, but there are potential pitfalls to be aware of, including hypercellular tumours, coagulative necrosis due to bevacizumab and intra-lesional haemorrhage. Radiation necrosis typically results in small, clustered foci of magnetic susceptibility on susceptibility-sensitive sequences, and the absence of such foci should raise concern for active tumour. When uncertainty remains, ancillary techniques such as MR perfusion and amino acid PET can improve confidence. Atypical appearances of radiation necrosis can occur, for example, cystic radiation necrosis or radiation necrosis occurring after radiotherapy to adjacent structures. It is also important for the radiologist to be aware of additional factors that may increase the likelihood of either radiation necrosis or tumour necrosis or influence patient management.

Prospective Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Hypofractionated Stereotactic Radiation Therapy of 25 Gy in 5 Fractions Compared With 35 Gy in 5 Fractions in the Reirradiation of Recurrent Glioblastoma

PURPOSE

The aim of this work was to investigate whether reirradiation of recurrent glioblastoma with hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (HSRT) consisting of 35 Gy in 5 fractions (35 Gy/5 fx) compared with 25 Gy in 5 fractions (25 Gy/5 fx) improves outcomes while maintaining acceptable toxicity.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a prospective randomized phase 2 trial involving patients with recurrent glioblastoma (per the 2007 and 2016 World Health Organization classification). A minimum interval from first radiation therapy of 5 months and gross tumor volume of 150 cc were required. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive HSRT alone in 25 Gy/5 fx or 35 Gy/5 fx. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). We used a randomized phase 2 screening design with a 2-sided α of 0.15 for the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2019, 40 patients were randomized and received HSRT, with 20 patients in each group. The median age was 50 years (range, 27-71); a new resection before HSRT was performed in 75% of patients. The median PFS was 4.9 months in the 25 Gy/5 fx group and 5.2 months in the 35 Gy/5 fx group (P = .23). Six-month PFS was similar at 40% (85% CI, 24%-55%) for both groups. The median overall survival (OS) was 9.2 months in the 25 Gy/5 fx group and 10 months in the 35 Gy/5 fx group (P = .201). Grade ≥3 necrosis was numerically higher in the 35 Gy/5 fx group (3 [16%] vs 1 [5%]), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .267). In an exploratory analysis, median OS of patients who developed treatment-related necrosis was 14.1 months, and that of patients who did not was 8.7 months (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

HSRT alone with 35 Gy/5 fx was not superior to 25 Gy/5 fx in terms of PFS or OS. Due to a potential increase in the rate of clinically meaningful treatment-related necrosis, we suggest 25 Gy/5 fx as the standard dose in HSRT alone. During follow-up, attention should be given to differentiating tumor progression from potentially manageable complications.

Challenges, limitations, and pitfalls of PET and advanced MRI in patients with brain tumors: A report of the PET/RANO group

Brain tumor diagnostics have significantly evolved with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) and advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. In addition to anatomical MRI, these modalities may provide valuable information for several clinical applications such as differential diagnosis, delineation of tumor extent, prognostication, differentiation between tumor relapse and treatment-related changes, and the evaluation of response to anticancer therapy. In particular, joint recommendations of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Group, the European Association of Neuro-oncology, and major European and American Nuclear Medicine societies highlighted that the additional clinical value of radiolabeled amino acids compared to anatomical MRI alone is outstanding and that its widespread clinical use should be supported. For advanced MRI and its steadily increasing use in clinical practice, the Standardization Subcommittee of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition provided more recently an updated acquisition protocol for the widely used dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI. Besides amino acid PET and perfusion MRI, other PET tracers and advanced MRI techniques (e.g. MR spectroscopy) are of considerable clinical interest and are increasingly integrated into everyday clinical practice. Nevertheless, these modalities have shortcomings which should be considered in clinical routine. This comprehensive review provides an overview of potential challenges, limitations, and pitfalls associated with PET imaging and advanced MRI techniques in patients with gliomas or brain metastases. Despite these issues, PET imaging and advanced MRI techniques continue to play an indispensable role in brain tumor management. Acknowledging and mitigating these challenges through interdisciplinary collaboration, standardized protocols, and continuous innovation will further enhance the utility of these modalities in guiding optimal patient care.

Neuro-oncology Treatment Strategies for Primary Glial Tumors

Primary brain tumors underwent reclassification in the 2021 World Health Organization update, relying on molecular findings (especially isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations and chromosomal changes in 1p, 19q, gain of chromosome 7 and loss of chromosome 10). Newer entities have also been described including histone 3 mutant midline gliomas. These updated pathologic classifications improve prognostication and reliable diagnosis, but may confuse interpretation of prior clinical trials and require reclassification of patients diagnosed in the past. For patients over seventy, multiple studies have now confirmed the utility of shorter courses of radiation, and the risk of post-operative delirium. Ongoing studies are comparing proton to photon radiation. Long term follow up of prior clinical trials have confirmed the roles and length of chemotherapy (mainly temozolomide) in different tumors, as well as the wearable novottf device. New oral isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors have also shown efficacy in clinical trials.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Centrally Restricted Diffusion Sign in Cerebral Metastatic Disease: Differentiating Radiation Necrosis from Tumor Recurrence

Purpose: The centrally restricted diffusion sign of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is associated with radiation necrosis (RN) in treated gliomas. Our goal was to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy to distinguish RN from tumor recurrence (TR) in treated brain metastases. Methods: Retrospective study of consecutive patients with brain metastases who developed a newly centrally necrotic lesion after radiotherapy (RT). One reader placed regions of interest (ROI) in the enhancing solid lesion and the non-enhancing central necrosis on the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map. Two readers qualitatively assessed the presence of the centrally restricted diffusion sign. The final diagnosis was made by histopathology (n = 39) or imaging follow-up (n = 2). Differences between groups were assessed by Fisher's exact or Mann-Whitney U tests. Diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and kappa scores. Results: Forty-one lesions (32 predominant RN; 9 predominant TR) were analyzed. An ADC value ≤ 1220 × 10-6 mm2/s (sensitivity 74%, specificity 89%, area under the curve [AUC] .85 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .70-.94] P < .0001) from the necrosis and an ADC necrosis/enhancement ratio ≤1.37 (sensitivity 74%, specificity 89%, AUC .82 [95% CI, .67-.93] P < .0001) provided the highest performance for RN diagnosis. The qualitative centrally restricted diffusion sign had a sensitivity of 69% (95% CI, .50-.83), specificity of 77% (95% CI, .40-.96), and a moderate (k = .49) inter-reader agreement for RN diagnosis. Conclusions: Radiation necrosis is associated with lower ADC values in the central necrosis than TR. A moderate interobserver agreement might limit the qualitative assessment of the centrally restricted diffusion sign.

Assessment of the hypervascularized fraction of glioblastomas using a volume analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI may help to identify pseudoprogression

PURPOSE

Although perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used to identify pseudoprogression, this advanced technique lacks clinical reliability. Our aim was to develop a parameter assessing the hypervascularized fraction of glioblastomas based on volume analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI and evaluate its performance in the diagnosis of pseudoprogression.

METHODS

Patients with primary glioblastoma showing lesion progression on the first follow-up MRI after chemoradiotherapy were enrolled retrospectively. On both initial and first follow-up MRIs, the leakage-corrected cerebral blood volume (CBV) maps were post-processed using the conventional hot-spot method and a volume method, after manual segmentation of the contrast-enhanced delineated lesion. The maximum CBV (rCBVmax) was calculated with both methods. Secondly, the threshold of 2 was applied to the CBV values contained in the entire segmented volume, defining our new parameter: %rCBV>2. The probability of pseudoprogression based on rCBVmax and %rCBV>2 was calculated in logistic regression models and diagnostic performance assessed by receiving operator characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Out of 25 patients, 11 (44%) were classified with pseudoprogression and 14 (56%) with true progression based on the Response Assessement in Neuro-Oncology criteria. rCBVmax was lower for pseudoprogression (3.4 vs. 7.6; p = 0.033) on early follow-up MRI. %rCBV>2, was lower for pseudoprogression on both initial (57.5% vs. 71.3%; p = 0.033) and early follow-up MRIs (22.1% vs. 51.8%; p = 0.0006). On early follow-up MRI, %rCBV>2 had the largest area under the curve for the diagnosis of pseudoprogression: 0.909 [0.725-0.986].

CONCLUSION

The fraction of hypervascularization of glioblastomas as assessed by %rCBV>2 was lower in tumours that subsequently developed pseudoprogression both on the initial and early follow-up MRIs. This fractional parameter may help identify pseudoprogression with greater accuracy than rCBVmax.

Combined Diagnostic Accuracy of Diffusion and Perfusion MR Imaging to Differentiate Radiation-Induced Necrosis from Recurrence in Glioblastoma

We aimed to use quantitative values derived from perfusion and diffusion-weighted MR imaging (PWI and DWI) to differentiate radiation-induced necrosis (RIN) from tumor recurrence in Glioblastoma (GBM) and investigate the best parameters for improved diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making. Methods: A retrospective analysis of follow-up MRI with new enhancing observations was performed in histopathologically confirmed subjects of post-treated GBM, who underwent re-surgical exploration. Quantitative estimation of rCBV (relative cerebral blood volume) from PWI and three methods of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) estimation were performed, namely ADC R1 (whole cross-sectional area of tumor), ADC R2 (only solid enhancing lesion), and ADC R3 (central necrosis). ROC curve and logistic regression analysis was completed. A confusion matrix table created using Excel provided the best combination parameters to ameliorate false-positive and false-negative results. Results: Forty-four subjects with a mean age of 46 years (range, 19−70 years) underwent re-surgical exploration with RIN in 28 (67%) and recurrent tumor in 16 (33%) on histopathology. rCBV threshold of >3.4 had the best diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.93, 81% sensitivity and 89% specificity). A multiple logistic regression model showed significant contributions from rCBV (p < 0.001) and ADC R3 (p = 0.001). After analysis of confusion matrix ADC R3 > 2032 × 10−6 mm2 achieved 100% specificity with gain in sensitivity (94% vs. 56%). Conclusions: A combination of parameters had better diagnostic performance, and a stepwise combination of rCBV and ADC R3 obviated unnecessary biopsies in 10% (3/28), leading to improved clinical decision-making.

The centrally restricted diffusion sign on MRI for assessment of radiation necrosis in metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery

Purpose

Differentiation of radiation necrosis from tumor progression in brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is challenging. For this, we assessed the performance of the centrally restricted diffusion sign.

Methods

Patients with brain metastases treated with SRS who underwent a subsequent intervention (biopsy/resection) for a ring-enhancing lesion on preoperative MRI between 2000 and 2020 were included. Excluded were lesions containing increased susceptibility limiting assessment of DWI. Two neuroradiologists classified the location of the diffusion restriction with respect to the post-contrast T1 images as centrally within the ring-enhancement (the centrally restricted diffusion sign), peripherally correlating to the rim of contrast enhancement, both locations, or none. Measures of diagnostic accuracy and 95% CI were calculated for the centrally restricted diffusion sign. Cohen's kappa was calculated to identify the interobserver agreement.

Results

Fifty-nine patients (36 female; mean age 59, range 40 to 80) were included, 36 with tumor progression and 23 with radiation necrosis based on histopathology. Primary tumors included 34 lung, 12 breast, 5 melanoma, 3 colorectal, 2 esophagus, 1 head and neck, 1 endometrium, and 1 thyroid. The centrally restricted diffusion sign was seen in 19/23 radiation necrosis cases (sensitivity 83% (95% CI 63 to 93%), specificity 64% (95% CI 48 to 78%), PPV 59% (95% CI 42 to 74%), NPV 85% (95% CI 68 to 94%)) and 13/36 tumor progression cases (difference p < 0.001). Interobserver agreement was substantial, at 0.61 (95% CI 0.45 to 70.8).

Conclusion

We found a low probability of radiation necrosis in the absence of the centrally restricted diffusion sign.