Pseudoprogression: Relevance With Respect to Treatment of High-Grade Gliomas
First Online: 19 May 2011 DOI:
10.1007/s11864-011-0157-1 Cite this article as: Fink, J., Born, D. & Chamberlain, M.C. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. (2011) 12: 240. doi:10.1007/s11864-011-0157-1 Opinion statement
The post-treatment imaging assessment of high-grade gliomas remains challenging notwithstanding the increased utilization of advanced MRI and PET imaging. Several post-treatment imaging entities are recognized including: late-delayed radiation injury, including radionecrosis mimicking tumor progression; early-delayed (within 6 months of temozolomide-based chemoradiation) post-treatment radiographic changes, herein referred to as pseudoprogression (the subject of this review); early post-treatment changes following local glioma therapy (i.e. biodegradable BCNU wafer implantation or stereotactic radiotherapy); and pseudoresponse, seen following treatment with angiogenic inhibition based therapy such as bevacizumab. A literature review searched specifically for “pseudoprogression” within the last 5 years (2005–2010). Approximately 24 recent papers were identified and reviewed in detail. Eight small population-based studies demonstrate 26–58% (median 49%) of glioblastoma patients treated with chemoradiotherapy manifest early disease progression at first post-radiotherapy imaging. Patients with early radiographic disease progression continued on planned therapy, and a median of 38% (range 28–66%) showed radiographic improvement or stabilization and were defined retrospectively as manifesting pseudoprogression. In conclusion, pseudoprogression is a frequent early post-treatment imaging change that at present is not easily differentiated from tumor progression by anatomic or physiologic brain imaging. Consequently, an operational definition of pseudoprogression has been adopted by the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group wherein either the index (i.e. target) lesion stabilizes or diminishes in size on continued post-radiation (temozolomide) therapy as determined by follow-up radiologic imaging.
References and Recommended Reading Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Hoffman WF, Levin VA, Wilson CB. Evaluation of malignant glioma patients during the postirradiation period. J Neurosurg. 1979;50(5):624–8.
Levin VA et al. Criteria for evaluating patients undergoing chemotherapy for malignant brain tumors. J Neurosurg. 1977;47(3):329–35.
Cascino TLK, Kimmel DW, Dinapoli RP, et al. Report of four cases with a resolving syndrome which otherwise simulates recurrent brain tumor. Neurology. 1988;38(Supplement 1):306.
Macdonald DR et al. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8(7):1277–80.
Graeb DA, Steinbok P, Robertson WD. Transient early computed tomographic changes mimicking tumor progression after brain tumor irradiation. Radiology. 1982;144(4):813–7.
de Wit MC et al. Immediate post-radiotherapy changes in malignant glioma can mimic tumor progression. Neurology. 2004;63(3):535–7.
Stupp R et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):987–96.
Chamberlain MC et al. Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2007;82(1):81–3.
Taal W et al. Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer. 2008;113(2):405–10.
Brandes AA et al. MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(13):2192–7.
Sanghera P et al. Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme. Can J Neurol Sci. 2010;37(1):36–42.
Roldan GB et al. Population-based study of pseudoprogression after chemoradiotherapy in GBM. Can J Neurol Sci. 2009;36(5):617–22.
Wen PY, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1963–72.
Zeng QS et al. Multivoxel 3D proton MR spectroscopy in the distinction of recurrent glioma from radiation injury. J Neurooncol. 2007;84(1):63–9.
Hu LS, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(3):552–8.
Hein PA et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the follow-up of treated high-grade gliomas: tumor recurrence versus radiation injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(2):201–9.
Kashimura H et al. Diffusion tensor imaging for differentiation of recurrent brain tumor and radiation necrosis after radiotherapy–three case reports. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2007;109(1):106–10.
Schlemmer HP et al. Proton MR spectroscopic evaluation of suspicious brain lesions after stereotactic radiotherapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(7):1316–24.
Plotkin M et al. 123I-IMT SPECT and 1 H MR-spectroscopy at 3.0 T in the differential diagnosis of recurrent or residual gliomas: a comparative study. J Neurooncol. 2004;70(1):49–58.
Sugahara T et al. Posttherapeutic intraaxial brain tumor: the value of perfusion-sensitive contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating tumor recurrence from nonneoplastic contrast-enhancing tissue. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21(5):901–9.
Galban CJ et al. The parametric response map is an imaging biomarker for early cancer treatment outcome. Nat Med. 2009;15(5):572–6.
Tsien C., et al. Parametric response map as an imaging biomarker to distinguish progression from pseudoprogression in high-grade glioma
J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(13):2293–9.
Ricci PE et al. Differentiating recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis: time for re-evaluation of positron emission tomography? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1998;19(3):407–13.
Spence AM et al. 18 F-FDG PET of gliomas at delayed intervals: improved distinction between tumor and normal gray matter. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(10):1653–9.
Chen W et al. Predicting treatment response of malignant gliomas to bevacizumab and irinotecan by imaging proliferation with [18 F] fluorothymidine positron emission tomography: a pilot study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(30):4714–21.
Muzi M et al. Kinetic analysis of 3′-deoxy-3′-18 F-fluorothymidine in patients with gliomas. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(10):1612–21.
Spence AM et al. NCI-sponsored trial for the evaluation of safety and preliminary efficacy of 3′-deoxy-3′-[18 F]fluorothymidine (FLT) as a marker of proliferation in patients with recurrent gliomas: preliminary efficacy studies. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11(5):343–55.
Terakawa Y et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 11 C-methionine PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(5):694–9.
Rachinger W et al. Positron emission tomography with O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of recurrent gliomas. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(3):505–11. discussion 505–11.
Pytel P, Lukas RV. Update on diagnostic practice: tumors of the nervous system. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(7):1062–77.
Fabi A et al. Pseudoprogression and MGMT status in glioblastoma patients: implications in clinical practice. Anticancer Res. 2009;29(7):2607–10.
Sayyari A. A., et al., Distinguishing recurrent primary brain tumor from radiation injury: a preliminary study using a susceptibility-weighted MR imaging-guided apparent diffusion coefficient analysis strategy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(6):1049–54.
Miyatake S et al. Pseudoprogression in boron neutron capture therapy for malignant gliomas and meningiomas. Neuro Oncology. 2009;11(4):430–6.
Perry A, Schmidt RE. Cancer therapy-associated CNS neuropathology: an update and review of the literature. Acta Neuropathol. 2006;111(3):197–212.
Tihan T et al. Prognostic value of detecting recurrent glioblastoma multiforme in surgical specimens from patients after radiotherapy: should pathology evaluation alter treatment decisions? Hum Pathol. 2006;37(3):272–82.
Cao Y et al. Use of magnetic resonance imaging to assess blood-brain/blood-glioma barrier opening during conformal radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(18):4127–36.
Lemasson B et al. Monitoring blood-brain barrier status in a rat model of glioma receiving therapy: dual injection of low-molecular-weight and macromolecular MR contrast media. Radiology. 2010;257(2):342–52.
Chamberlain MC. Emerging clinical principles on the use of bevacizumab for the treatment of malignant gliomas
Sorensen AG et al. Response criteria for glioma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008;5(11):634–44.
Henson JW, Ulmer S, Harris GJ. Brain tumor imaging in clinical trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(3):419–24.
Gerstner ER, Batchelor TT. Imaging and response criteria in gliomas. Curr Opin Oncol. 2010;22(6):598–603.
Brandsma, D., van den Bent MJ. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse in the treatment of gliomas
Curr Opin Neurol. 2009;22(6):633–8.
PubMed CrossRef Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011