The Differentiation between Progressive Disease and Treatment-Induced Effects with Perfusion-Weighted Arterial Spin-Labeling in High-Grade Gliomas

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Louis DN,
   2. Perry A,
   3. Wesseling P, et al

   . The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:1231–51 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab106 pmid:34185076

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Taal W,
   2. Brandsma D,
   3. de Bruin HG, et al

   . Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer 2008;113:405–10 doi:10.1002/cncr.23562 pmid:18484594

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Brandes AA,
   2. Tosoni A,
   3. Spagnolli F, et al

   . Disease progression or pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment: pitfalls in neurooncology. Neuro Oncol 2008;10:361–67 doi:10.1215/15228517-2008-008 pmid:18401015

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Flies CM,
   2. van Leuken KH,
   3. Ten Voorde M, et al

   . Conventional MRI criteria to differentiate progressive disease from treatment-induced effects in high-grade (WHO grade 3-4) gliomas. Neurology 2022;99:e77–88 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000200359 pmid:35437259

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Grade M,
   2. Hernandez Tamames JA,
   3. Pizzini FB, et al

   . A neuroradiologist's guide to arterial spin labeling MRI in clinical practice. Neuroradiology 2015;57:1181–202 doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1571-z pmid:26351201

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Razek A,
   2. El-Serougy L,
   3. Abdelsalam M, et al

   . Differentiation of residual/recurrent gliomas from postradiation necrosis with arterial spin labeling and diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging-derived metrics. Neuroradiology 2018;60:169–77 doi:10.1007/s00234-017-1955-3 pmid:29218370

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Manning P,
   2. Daghighi S,
   3. Rajaratnam MK, et al

   . Differentiation of progressive disease from pseudoprogression using 3D pCASL and DSC perfusion MRI in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2020;147:681–90 doi:10.1007/s11060-020-03475-y pmid:32239431

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Jovanovic M,
   2. Radenkovic S,
   3. Stosic-Opincal T, et al

   . Differentiation between progression and pseudoprogression by arterial spin labeling MRI in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. J BUON 2017;22:1061–67 pmid:28952228

   PubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Choi YJ,
   2. Kim HS,
   3. Jahng GH, et al

   . Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging. Acta Radiol 2013;54:448–54 doi:10.1177/0284185112474916 pmid:23592805

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Xu Q,
    2. Liu Q,
    3. Ge H, et al

    . Tumor recurrence versus treatment effects in glioma: a comparative study of three dimensional pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e9332 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000009332 pmid:29390403

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Pellerin A,
    2. Khalife M,
    3. Sanson M, et al

    . Simultaneously acquired PET and ASL imaging biomarkers may be helpful in differentiating progression from pseudo-progression in treated gliomas. Eur Radiol 2021;31:7395–405 doi:10.1007/s00330-021-07732-0 pmid:33787971

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Ozsunar Y,
    2. Mullins ME,
    3. Kwong K, et al

    . Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis? A pilot comparison of arterial spin-labeled, dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced MRI, and FDG-PET imaging. Acad Radiol 2010;17:282–90 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2009.10.024 pmid:20060750

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Seeger A,
    2. Braun C,
    3. Skardelly M, et al

    . Comparison of three different MR perfusion techniques and MR spectroscopy for multiparametric assessment in distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from stable disease. Acad Radiol 2013;20:1557–65 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.003 pmid:24200483

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Wang YL,
    2. Chen S,
    3. Xiao HF, et al

    . Differentiation between radiation-induced brain injury and glioma recurrence using 3D pCASL and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted imaging. Radiother Oncol 2018;129:68–74 doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2018.01.009 pmid:29398151

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Nyberg E,
    2. Honce J,
    3. Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, et al

    . Arterial spin labeling: Pathologically proven superiority over conventional MRI for detection of high-grade glioma progression after treatment. Neuroradiol J 2016;29:377–83 doi:10.1177/1971400916665375 pmid:27542895

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Ye J,
    2. Bhagat SK,
    3. Li H, et al

    . Differentiation between recurrent gliomas and radiation necrosis using arterial spin-labeling perfusion imaging. Exp Ther Med 2016;11:2432–36 doi:10.3892/etm.2016.3225 pmid:27284331

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Ellingson BM,
    2. Wen PY,
    3. Cloughesy TF

    . Modified criteria for radiographic response assessment in glioblastoma clinical trials. Neurotherapeutics 2017;14:307–20 doi:10.1007/s13311-016-0507-6 pmid:28108885

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Flies CM,
    2. Snijders TJ,
    3. Van Seeters T, et al

    . Perfusion imaging with arterial spin-labeling (ASL)-MRI predicts malignant progression in lowgrade (WHO grade II) gliomas. Neuroradiology 2021;63:2023–33 doi:10.1007/s00234-021-02737-4 pmid:34114065

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Wang N,
    2. Xie SY,
    3. Liu HM, et al

    . Arterial spin-labeling for glioma grade discrimination: correlations with IDH1 genotype and 1p/19q status. Transl Oncol 2019;12:749–56 doi:10.1016/j.tranon.2019.02.01]3 pmid:30878893

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Bert RJ,
    2. Colantoni W,
    3. Ney DE, et al

    . Comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR perfusion in differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment-related changes. Int J Radiol Imaging Technol 2017;3:022 doi:10.23937/2572-3235.1510022

    CrossRef
21. 21.↵
    1. Sim J,
    2. Wright CC

    . The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 2005;85:257–68 doi:10.1093/ptj/85.3.257 pmid:15733050

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Liu Y,
    2. Chen G,
    3. Tang H, et al

    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of arterial spin-labeling imaging to distinguish between glioma recurrence and post-treatment radiation effect. Ann Palliat Med 2021;10:12488–97 doi:10.21037/apm-21-3319 pmid:35016424

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. van den Bent MJ

    . Interobserver variation of the histopathological diagnosis in clinical trials on glioma: a clinician’s perspective. Acta Neuropathol 2010;120:297–304 doi:10.1007/s00401-010-0725-7 pmid:20644945

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Wen P,
    2. van den Bent M,
    3. Youssef G, et al

    . RANO 2.0: update to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria for high- and low-grade gliomas in adults. J Clin Oncol 2023;4:5186–99 doi:10.1200/JCO.23.01059 pmid:37774317

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Draaisma K,
    2. Chatzipli A,
    3. Taphoorn M, et al

    . Molecular evolution of IDH wild-type glioblastomas treated with standard of care affects survival and design of precision medicine trials: a report from the EORTC 1542 Study. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:81–99 doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00367 pmid:31743054

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Kocher M,
    2. Ruge MI,
    3. Galldiks N, et al

    . Applications of radiomics and machine learning for radiotherapy of malignant brain tumors. Strahlenther Onkol 2020;196:856–67 doi:10.1007/s00066-020-01626-8 pmid:32394100

    CrossRefPubMed