23Na-MRI of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme after intraoperative radiotherapy: technical note
- 302 Downloads
We report the first case of an intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in a patient with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) who was followed up with a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) method—23Na-MRI—in comparison to a standard contrast-enhanced 1H-MRI and 18F-FET-PET.
A 56-year-old female patient with diagnosed GBM in July 2012 underwent tumor resection, radiochemotherapy, and three cycles of chemotherapy. After a relapse, 6 months after the initial diagnosis, an IORT was recommended which was performed in March 2013 using the INTRABEAM system (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany) with a 3-cm applicator and a surface dose of 20 Gy. Early post-operative contrast-enhanced and 1-month follow-up 1H-MRI and a 18F-FET-PET were performed. In addition, an IRB-approved 23Na-MRI was performed on a 3.0-T MR scanner (MAGNETOM TimTrio, Siemens Healthcare, Germany).
After re-surgery and IORT in March 2013, only a faint contrast enhancement but considerable surrounding edema was visible at the medio-posterior resection margins. In April 2013, new and progressive contrast enhancement, edema, 23Na content, and increased uptake in the 18F-FET-PET were visible, indicating tumor recurrence. Increased sodium content within the area of contrast enhancement was found in the 23Na-MRI, but also exceeding this area, very similar to the increased uptake depicted in the 18F-FET-PET. The clearly delineable zone of edema in both examinations exhibits a lower 23Na content compared to areas with suspected proliferating tumor tissue.
23Na-MRI provided similar information in the suspicious area compared to 18F-FET-PET, exceeding conventional 1H-MRI. Still, 23Na-MRI remains an investigational technique, which is worth to be further evaluated.
KeywordsRecurrent glioblastoma multiforme 23Na-MRI 18F-FET-PET IORT/INTRABEAM®
Ethical standards and patient consent
We declare that all human studies have been approved by the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Commitee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. We declare that all patients gave informed consent prior to inclusion in this study.
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Giordano F et al (2014) Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT)—a resurrected option for treating glioblastoma? Transl Cancer Res 3(1):94–105Google Scholar
- 4.Weller M et al (2013) Standards of care for treatment of recurrent glioblastoma—are we there yet? J Neurooncol 15(1):4–27Google Scholar
- 7.Galldiks N et al (2012) Assessment of treatment response in patients with glioblastoma using O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET in comparison to MRI. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 53(7):1048–1057Google Scholar
- 9.Haneder S, et al (2013) Sodium (23Na)-imaging as therapy monitoring in oncology—future prospects. MAGNETOM Flash. 2 (ISMRM edition)(52):72–77Google Scholar
- 22.Ryken TC, et al (2014) The role of imaging in the management of progressive glioblastoma: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. Journal of Neuro-oncologyGoogle Scholar
- 23.Kline RP et al (2000) Rapid in vivo monitoring of chemotherapeutic response using weighted sodium magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 6(6):2146–2156Google Scholar