Advertisement

Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 113, Issue 3, pp 479–483 | Cite as

Prognostic role for diffusion-weighted imaging of pediatric optic pathway glioma

  • K. W. Yeom
  • R. M. LoberEmail author
  • J. B. Andre
  • P. G. Fisher
  • P. D. Barnes
  • M. S. B. Edwards
  • S. Partap
Clinical Study

Abstract

Optic pathway glioma (OPG) has an unpredictable course, with poor correlation between conventional imaging features and tumor progression. We investigated whether diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) predicts the clinical behavior of these tumors. Twelve children with OPG (median age 2.7 years; range 0.4–6.2 years) were followed for a median 4.4 years with DWI. Progression-free survival (time to requiring therapy) was compared between tumors stratified by apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from initial pre-treatment scans. Tumors with baseline ADC greater than 1,400 × 10−6 mm2/s required treatment earlier than those with lower ADC (log-rank p = 0.002). In some cases, ADC increased leading up to treatment, and declined following treatment with surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation. Baseline ADC was higher in tumors that eventually required treatment (1,562 ± 192 × 10−6 mm2/s), compared with those conservatively managed (1,123 ± 114 × 10−6 mm2/s) (Kruskal–Wallis test p = 0.013). Higher ADC predicted earlier tumor progression in this cohort and in some cases declined after therapy. Evaluation of OPG with DWI may therefore be useful for predicting tumor behavior and assessing treatment response.

Keywords

MRI DWI ADC Optic pathway glioma 

Notes

Conflict of interest

This study was performed without grant support or industry sponsorship. There are no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Binning MJ, Liu JK, Kestle JRW et al (2007) Optic pathway gliomas: a review. Neurosurg Focus 23:E2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahn Y, Cho B-Y, Kim S-K et al (2006) Optic pathway glioma: outcome and prognostic factors in a surgical series. Child Nerv Syst 22:1136–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D et al (1996) MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology 161:401–407Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tien RD, Felsberg GJ, Friedman H et al (1994) MR imaging of high-grade cerebral gliomas: value of diffusion-weighted echoplanar pulse sequences. AJR 162:671–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M et al (1999) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:53–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Filippi CG, Bos A, Nickerson JP et al (2012) Magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging (MRDTI) of the optic nerve and radiations at 3T in children with neurofibromatosis type I (NF-1). Pediatr Radiol 42:168–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jost SC, Ackerman JW, Garbow JR et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging as markers of clinical behavior in children with optic pathway glioma. Pediatr Radiol 38:1293–1299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crouse NR, Dahiya S, Gutmann DH (2011) Rethinking pediatric gliomas as developmental brain abnormalities. Current Topics in Developmental Biology, vol. 94. Elsevier/Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoyt WF, Baghdassarian SA (1969) Optic glioma of childhood. Natural history and rationale for conservative management. Br J Ophthalmol 53:793–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. W. Yeom
    • 1
  • R. M. Lober
    • 2
    Email author
  • J. B. Andre
    • 3
  • P. G. Fisher
    • 4
  • P. D. Barnes
    • 1
  • M. S. B. Edwards
    • 2
  • S. Partap
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Pediatric Radiology, Department of RadiologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Department of NeurosurgeryStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Washington Medical CenterSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Division of Child Neurology, Department of NeurologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations