6 research outputs found

    Pseudoprogression of brain tumors

    Get PDF
    This review describes the definition, incidence, clinical implications, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of pseudoprogression of brain tumors, in particular, but not limited to, high-grade glioma. Pseudoprogression is an important clinical problem after brain tumor treatment, interfering not only with day-to-day patient care but also the execution and interpretation of clinical trials. Radiologically, pseudoprogression is defined as a new or enlarging area(s) of contrast agent enhancement, in the absence of true tumor growth, which subsides or stabilizes without a change in therapy. The clinical definitions of pseudoprogression have been quite variable, which may explain some of the differences in reported incidences, which range from 9-30%. Conventional structural MRI is insufficient for distinguishing pseudoprogression from true progressive disease, and advanced imaging is needed to obtain higher levels of diagnostic certainty. Perfusion MRI is the most widely used imaging technique to diagnose pseudoprogression and has high reported diagnostic accuracy. Diagnostic performance of MR spectroscopy (MRS) appears to be somewhat higher, but MRS is less suitable for the routine and universal application in brain tumor follow-up. The combination of MRS and diffusion-weighted imaging and/or perfusion MRI seems to be particularly powerful, with diagnostic accuracy reaching up to or even greater than 90%. While diagnostic performance can be high with appropriate implementation and interpretation, even a combination of techniques, however, does not provide 100% accuracy. It should also be noted that most studies to date are small, heterogeneous, and retrospective in nature. Future improvements in diagnostic accuracy can be expected with harmonization of acquisition and postprocessing, quantitative MRI and computer-aided diagnostic technology, and meticulous evaluation with clinical and pathological data

    Filtration-Histogram Based Magnetic Resonance Texture Analysis (MRTA) for the Distinction of Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma and Glioblastoma

    No full text
    Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) has variable imaging appearances, which overlap with those of glioblastoma (GBM), thereby necessitating invasive tissue diagnosis. We aimed to investigate whether a rapid filtration histogram analysis of clinical MRI data supports the distinction of PCNSL from GBM. Ninety tumours (PCNSL n = 48, GBM n = 42) were analysed using pre-treatment MRI sequences (T1-weighted contrast-enhanced (T1CE), T2-weighted (T2), and apparent diffusion coefficient maps (ADC)). The segmentations were completed with proprietary texture analysis software (TexRAD version 3.3). Filtered (five filter sizes SSF = 2–6 mm) and unfiltered (SSF = 0) histogram parameters were compared using Mann-Whitney U non-parametric testing, with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) derived area under the curve (AUC) analysis for significant results. Across all (n = 90) tumours, the optimal algorithm performance was achieved using an unfiltered ADC mean and the mean of positive pixels (MPP), with a sensitivity of 83.8%, specificity of 8.9%, and AUC of 0.88. For subgroup analysis with >1/3 necrosis masses, ADC permitted the identification of PCNSL with a sensitivity of 96.9% and specificity of 100%. For T1CE-derived regions, the distinction was less accurate, with a sensitivity of 71.4%, specificity of 77.1%, and AUC of 0.779. A role may exist for cross-sectional texture analysis without complex machine learning models to differentiate PCNSL from GBM. ADC appears the most suitable sequence, especially for necrotic lesion distinction

    Overcoming challenges of translating deep learning models for Glioblastoma: the ZGBM consortium.

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE To report imaging protocol and scheduling variance in routine care of glioblastoma patients in order to demonstrate challenges of integrating deep learning models in glioblastoma care pathways. Additionally, to understand the most common imaging studies and image contrasts to inform the development of potentially robust deep learning models. METHODS MR imaging data were analysed from a random sample of 5 patients from the prospective cohort across five participating sites of the ZGBM consortium. Reported clinical and treatment data alongside DICOM header information were analysed to understand treatment pathway imaging schedules. RESULTS All sites perform all structural imaging at every stage in the pathway except for the presurgical study, where in some sites only contrast-enhanced -weighted imaging is performed. Diffusion MRI is the most common non-structural imaging type, performed at every site. CONCLUSION The imaging protocol and scheduling varies across the UK, making it challenging to develop machine learning models that could perform robustly at other centres. Structural imaging is performed most consistently across all centres. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Successful translation of deep learning models will likely be based on structural post-treatment imaging unless there is significant effort made to standardise non-structural or peri-operative imaging protocols and schedules

    A framework for standardised tissue sampling and processing during resection of diffuse intracranial glioma:joint recommendations from four RANO groups

    No full text
    Surgical resection represents the standard of care for people with newly diagnosed diffuse gliomas, and the neuropathological and molecular profile of the resected tissue guides clinical management and forms the basis for research. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) consortium is an international, multidisciplinary effort that aims to standardise research practice in neuro-oncology. These recommendations represent a multidisciplinary consensus from the four RANO groups: RANO resect, RANO recurrent glioblastoma, RANO radiotherapy, and RANO/PET for a standardised workflow to achieve a representative tumour evaluation in a disease characterised by intratumoural heterogeneity, including recommendations on which tumour regions should be surgically sampled, how to define those regions on the basis of preoperative imaging, and the optimal sample volume. Practical recommendations for tissue sampling are given for people with low-grade and high-grade gliomas, as well as for people with newly diagnosed and recurrent disease. Sampling of liquid biopsies is also addressed. A standardised workflow for subsequent handling of the resected tissue is proposed to avoid information loss due to decreasing tissue quality or insufficient clinical information. The recommendations offer a framework for prospective biobanking studies.</p

    A framework for standardised tissue sampling and processing during resection of diffuse intracranial glioma:joint recommendations from four RANO groups

    No full text
    Surgical resection represents the standard of care for people with newly diagnosed diffuse gliomas, and the neuropathological and molecular profile of the resected tissue guides clinical management and forms the basis for research. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) consortium is an international, multidisciplinary effort that aims to standardise research practice in neuro-oncology. These recommendations represent a multidisciplinary consensus from the four RANO groups: RANO resect, RANO recurrent glioblastoma, RANO radiotherapy, and RANO/PET for a standardised workflow to achieve a representative tumour evaluation in a disease characterised by intratumoural heterogeneity, including recommendations on which tumour regions should be surgically sampled, how to define those regions on the basis of preoperative imaging, and the optimal sample volume. Practical recommendations for tissue sampling are given for people with low-grade and high-grade gliomas, as well as for people with newly diagnosed and recurrent disease. Sampling of liquid biopsies is also addressed. A standardised workflow for subsequent handling of the resected tissue is proposed to avoid information loss due to decreasing tissue quality or insufficient clinical information. The recommendations offer a framework for prospective biobanking studies.</p
    corecore