1
|
Engel DC, Adib SD, Schuhmann MU, Brendle C. Paradigm-shift: radiological changes in the asymptomatic iNPH-patient to be: an observational study. Fluids Barriers CNS 2018; 15:5. [PMID: 29422104 PMCID: PMC5806389 DOI: 10.1186/s12987-018-0090-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2017] [Accepted: 01/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many radiological signs are known for the diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). However, there is little information about these signs in the pre-symptomatic phase. For pathophysiological investigative purposes we conducted a descriptive image analysis study on pre-symptomatic patients. METHODS Patients that had contact with either the neurological or neurosurgical department of the university hospital Tuebingen from 2010 through 2016 with magnetic resonance images > 3 years before onset of symptoms, were included. The date of onset and severity of symptoms, date of first imaging and birth date were recorded. Evan's index (EI), width of the third ventricle (3VW), tight high convexity (THC), Sylvian fissure, extent of white matter hyperintensities and aqueductal flow were assessed in images before and around symptom onset. RESULTS Ten patients were included. In all ten patients the first symptom was gait disturbance. Nine of ten pre-symptomatic images showed classic signs for iNPH. EI showed a significant increase between the pre-symptomatic and symptomatic phase. 3VW showed a trend for increase without significance. THC changed back and forth over time within some patients. CONCLUSIONS In accordance with the scarce literature available, radiological changes are present at least 3 years before onset of iNPH-symptoms. EI seems to be a robust measure for pre-symptomatic radiological changes. Extrapolating the data, the development of iNPH typical changes might be an insidious process and the development of THC might be a variable and non-linear process. Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to put these findings into the pathophysiological perspective for the development of iNPH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D. C. Engel
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - S. D. Adib
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - M. U. Schuhmann
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - C. Brendle
- Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bailey DL, Pichler BJ, Gückel B, Antoch G, Barthel H, Bhujwalla ZM, Biskup S, Biswal S, Bitzer M, Boellaard R, Braren RF, Brendle C, Brindle K, Chiti A, la Fougère C, Gillies R, Goh V, Goyen M, Hacker M, Heukamp L, Knudsen GM, Krackhardt AM, Law I, Morris JC, Nikolaou K, Nuyts J, Ordonez AA, Pantel K, Quick HH, Riklund K, Sabri O, Sattler B, Troost EGC, Zaiss M, Zender L, Beyer T. Combined PET/MRI: Global Warming-Summary Report of the 6th International Workshop on PET/MRI, March 27-29, 2017, Tübingen, Germany. Mol Imaging Biol 2018; 20:4-20. [PMID: 28971346 PMCID: PMC5775351 DOI: 10.1007/s11307-017-1123-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
The 6th annual meeting to address key issues in positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was held again in Tübingen, Germany, from March 27 to 29, 2017. Over three days of invited plenary lectures, round table discussions and dialogue board deliberations, participants critically assessed the current state of PET/MRI, both clinically and as a research tool, and attempted to chart future directions. The meeting addressed the use of PET/MRI and workflows in oncology, neurosciences, infection, inflammation and chronic pain syndromes, as well as deeper discussions about how best to characterise the tumour microenvironment, optimise the complementary information available from PET and MRI, and how advanced data mining and bioinformatics, as well as information from liquid biomarkers (circulating tumour cells and nucleic acids) and pathology, can be integrated to give a more complete characterisation of disease phenotype. Some issues that have dominated previous meetings, such as the accuracy of MR-based attenuation correction (AC) of the PET scan, were finally put to rest as having been adequately addressed for the majority of clinical situations. Likewise, the ability to standardise PET systems for use in multicentre trials was confirmed, thus removing a perceived barrier to larger clinical imaging trials. The meeting openly questioned whether PET/MRI should, in all cases, be used as a whole-body imaging modality or whether in many circumstances it would best be employed to give an in-depth study of previously identified disease in a single organ or region. The meeting concluded that there is still much work to be done in the integration of data from different fields and in developing a common language for all stakeholders involved. In addition, the participants advocated joint training and education for individuals who engage in routine PET/MRI. It was agreed that PET/MRI can enhance our understanding of normal and disrupted biology, and we are in a position to describe the in vivo nature of disease processes, metabolism, evolution of cancer and the monitoring of response to pharmacological interventions and therapies. As such, PET/MRI is a key to advancing medicine and patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D L Bailey
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - B J Pichler
- Werner Siemens Imaging Center, Department of Preclinical Imaging and Radiopharmacy, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen, Germany
| | - B Gückel
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - G Antoch
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany
| | - H Barthel
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Z M Bhujwalla
- Division of Cancer Imaging Research, Department of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - S Biskup
- Praxis für Humangenetik Tübingen, Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 23, 72076, Tübingen, Germany
| | - S Biswal
- Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS) and Bio-X, Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - M Bitzer
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - R Boellaard
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - R F Braren
- Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
| | - C Brendle
- Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany
| | - K Brindle
- Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0RE, UK
- Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge, CB2 1GA, UK
| | - A Chiti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - C la Fougère
- Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen, Germany
| | - R Gillies
- Department of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, 33621, USA
| | - V Goh
- Cancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
- Department of Radiology, Guy's & St Thomas' Hospitals London, London, UK
| | - M Goyen
- GE Healthcare GmbH, Beethovenstrasse 239, Solingen, Germany
| | - M Hacker
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - G M Knudsen
- Neurobiology Research Unit, Rigshospitalet and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - A M Krackhardt
- III. Medical Department, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
| | - I Law
- Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - J C Morris
- Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - K Nikolaou
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - J Nuyts
- Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - A A Ordonez
- Department of Pediatrics, Center for Infection and Inflammation Imaging Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - K Pantel
- Institute of Tumor Biology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - H H Quick
- High Field and Hybrid MR Imaging, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- Erwin L. Hahn Institute for MR Imaging, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - K Riklund
- Department of Radiation Sciences, Umea University, Umea, Sweden
| | - O Sabri
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - B Sattler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - E G C Troost
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany
- Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus and Medical Faculty of Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - M Zaiss
- High Field Magnetic Resonance, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany
| | - L Zender
- Department of Internal Medicine VIII, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Thomas Beyer
- QIMP Group, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering General Hospital Vienna, Medical University Vienna, 4L, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hempel JM, Schittenhelm J, Bisdas S, Brendle C, Bender B, Bier G, Skardelly M, Tabatabai G, Castaneda Vega S, Ernemann U, Klose U. In vivo assessment of tumor heterogeneity in WHO 2016 glioma grades using diffusion kurtosis imaging: Diagnostic performance and improvement of feasibility in routine clinical practice. J Neuroradiol 2017; 45:32-40. [PMID: 28865921 DOI: 10.1016/j.neurad.2017.07.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2017] [Revised: 07/04/2017] [Accepted: 07/19/2017] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the diagnostic performance of normalized and non-normalized diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) metrics extracted from different tumor volume data for grading glioma according to the integrated approach of the revised 2016 WHO classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty patients with histopathologically confirmed glioma, who provided written informed consent, were retrospectively assessed between 01/2013 and 08/2016 from a prospective trial approved by the local institutional review board. Mean kurtosis (MK) and mean diffusivity (MD) metrics from DKI were assessed by two blinded physicians from four different volumes of interest (VOI): whole solid tumor including (VOItu-ed) and excluding perifocal edema (VOItu), infiltrative zone (VOIed), and single slice of solid tumor core (VOIslice). Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess inter-rater agreement. One-way ANOVA was used to compare MK between 2016 CNS WHO tumor grades. Friedman's test compared MK and MD of each VOI. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to correlate MK with 2016 CNS WHO tumor grades. ROC analysis was performed on MK for significant results. RESULTS The MK assessment showed excellent inter-rater agreement for each VOI (ICC, 0.906-0.955). MK was significantly lower in IDHmutant astrocytoma (0.40±0.07), than in 1p/19q-confirmed oligodendroglioma (0.54±0.10, P=0.001) or IDHwild-type glioblastoma (0.68±0.13, P<0.001). MK and 2016 WHO tumor grades were strongly and positively correlated (VOItu-ed, r=0.684; VOItu, r=0.734; VOIed, r=0.625; VOIslice, r=0.698; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Non-normalized MK values obtained from VOItu and VOIslice showed the best reproducibility and highest diagnostic performance for stratifying glioma according to the integrated approach of the recent 2016 WHO classification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J-M Hempel
- Department of Neuroradiology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.
| | - J Schittenhelm
- Department of Pathology and Neuropathology, Institute of Neuropathology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - S Bisdas
- Department of Neuroradiology, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - C Brendle
- Department of Neuroradiology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - B Bender
- Department of Neuroradiology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - G Bier
- Department of Neuroradiology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - M Skardelly
- Department of Neurosurgery, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - G Tabatabai
- Centre of Neurooncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Tübingen-Stuttgart, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - S Castaneda Vega
- Department of Preclinical Imaging and Radiopharmacy, Werner-Siemens Imaging Center, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - U Ernemann
- Department of Neuroradiology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - U Klose
- Department of Neuroradiology, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Schraml C, Schwenzer NF, Sperling O, Aschoff P, Lichy MP, Müller M, Brendle C, Werner MK, Claussen CD, Pfannenberg C. Staging of neuroendocrine tumours: comparison of [⁶⁸Ga]DOTATOC multiphase PET/CT and whole-body MRI. Cancer Imaging 2013; 13:63-72. [PMID: 23466785 PMCID: PMC3589947 DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: In patients with a neuroendocrine tumour (NET), the extent of disease strongly influences the outcome and multidisciplinary therapeutic management. Thus, systematic analysis of the diagnostic performance of the existing staging modalities is necessary. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 2 whole-body imaging modalities, [68Ga]DOTATOC positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with NET with regard to possible impact on treatment decisions. Materials and methods: [68Ga]DOTATOC-PET/CT and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (wbMRI) were performed on 51 patients (25 females, 26 males, mean age 57 years) with histologically proven NET and suspicion of metastatic spread within a mean interval of 2.4 days (range 0–28 days). PET/CT was performed after intravenous administration of 150 MBq [68Ga]DOTATOC. The CT protocol comprised multiphase contrast-enhanced imaging. The MRI protocol consisted of standard sequences before and after intravenous contrast administration at 1.5 T. Each modality (PET, CT, PET/CT, wbMRI) was evaluated independently by 2 experienced readers. Consensus decision based on correlation of all imaging data, histologic and surgical findings and clinical follow-up was established as the standard of reference. Lesion-based and patient-based analysis was performed. Detection rates and accuracy were compared using the McNemar test. P values <0.05 were considered significant. The impact of whole-body imaging on the treatment decision was evaluated by the interdisciplinary tumour board of our institution. Results: 593 metastatic lesions were detected in 41 of 51 (80%) patients with NET (lung 54, liver 266, bone 131, lymph node 99, other 43). One hundred and twenty PET-negative lesions were detected by CT or MRI. Of all 593 lesions detected, PET identified 381 (64%) true-positive lesions, CT 482 (81%), PET/CT 545 (92%) and wbMRI 540 (91%). Comparison of lesion-based detection rates between PET/CT and wbMRI revealed significantly higher sensitivity of PET/CT for metastatic lymph nodes (100% vs 73%; P < 0.0001) and pulmonary lesions (100% vs 87%; P = 0.0233), whereas wbMRI had significantly higher detection rates for liver (99% vs 92%; P < 0.0001) and bone lesions (96% vs 82%; P < 0.0001). Of all 593 lesions, 22 were found only in PET, 11 only in CT and 47 only in wbMRI. The patient-based overall assessment of the metastatic status of the patient showed comparable sensitivity of PET/CT and MRI with slightly higher accuracy of PET/CT. Patient-based analysis of metastatic organ involvement revealed significantly higher accuracy of PET/CT for bone and lymph node metastases (100% vs 88%; P = 0.0412 and 98% vs 78%; P = 0.0044) and for the overall comparison (99% vs 89%; P < 0.0001). The imaging results influenced the treatment decision in 30 patients (59%) with comparable information from PET/CT and wbMRI in 30 patients, additional relevant information from PET/CT in 16 patients and from wbMRI in 7 patients. Conclusion: PET/CT and wbMRI showed comparable overall lesion-based detection rates for metastatic involvement in NET but significantly differed in organ-based detection rates with superiority of PET/CT for lymph node and pulmonary lesions and of wbMRI for liver and bone metastases. Patient-based analysis revealed superiority of PET/CT for NET staging. Individual treatment strategies benefit from complementary information from PET/CT and MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Schraml
- University Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, Tübingen 72076, Germany.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|