Dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion MRI in differential diagnosis between radionecrosis and neoangiogenesis in cerebral metastases using rCBV, rCBF and K2

  • Mario Muto
  • Giulia Frauenfelder
  • Rossana Senese
  • Fabio Zeccolini
  • Emiliano Schena
  • Francesco Giurazza
  • Hans Rolf Jäger
ONCOLOGY IMAGING

Abstract

Introduction

Distinction between treatment-related changes and tumour recurrence in patients who have received radiation treatment for brain metastases can be difficult on conventional MRI. In this study, we investigated the ability of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion in differentiating necrotic changes from pathological angiogenesis and compared measurements of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and K2, using a dedicated software.

Methods

Twenty-nine patients with secondary brain tumors were included in this retrospective study and underwent DSC perfusion MRI with a 3-month follow-up imaging after chemo- or radiation-therapy. Region-of-interests were drawn around the contrast enhancing lesions and measurements of rCBV, rCBF and K2 were performed in all patients. Based on subsequent histological examination or clinico-radiological follow-up, the cohort was divided in two groups: recurrent disease and stable disease. Differences between the two groups were analyzed using the Student’s t test. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of rCBV measurements were analyzed considering three different cut-off values.

Results

Between patients with and without disease, only rCBV and rCBF values were significant (p < 0.05). The only cut-off value giving the best diagnostic accuracy of 100% was rCBV = 2.1 (sensitivity = 100%; specificity = 100%). Patients with tumor recurrence showed a higher mean value of rCBV (mean = 4.28, standard deviation = 2.09) than patients with necrotic-related changes (mean = 0.77, standard deviation = 0.44).

Conclusion

DSC-MRI appears a clinically useful method to differentiate between tumor recurrence, tumor necrosis and pseudoprogression in patients treated for cerebral metastases. Relative CBV using a cut-off value of 2.1 proved to be the most accurate and reliable parameter.

Keywords

Functional magnetic resonance imaging Perfusion Brain Neoplasm metastases Cerebral blood volume 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Patchell RA (2003) The management of brain metastases. Cancer Treat Rev 29:533–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Badiyan SN, Regine WF, Mehta M (2016) Stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of brain metastases. J Oncol Pract 12(8):703–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Essig M, Waschkies M, Wenz F, Debus J, Hentrich HR, Knopp MV (2003) Assessment of brain metastases with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial results. Radiology 228:193–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitsuya K, Nakasu Y, Horiguchi S, Harada H, Nishimura T, Bando E, Okawa H, Furukawa Y, Hirai T, Endo M (2010) Perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging to distinguish the recurrence of metastatic brain tumors from radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 99(1):81–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peterson AM, Meltzer CC, Evanson EJ, Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D (1999) MR imaging response of brain metastases after gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery. Radiology 211:807–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ross DA, Sandler HM, Balter JM, Hatman JA, Archer PG, Auer DL (2002) Imaging changes after stereotactic radiosurgery of primary and secondary malignant brain tumors. J Neurooncol 56:175–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chamberlain MC (2008) Pseudoprogression in gliobastoma. J Clin Oncol 26:4359–4360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, Blatt V, Pession A, Tallini G, Bertorelle R, Bartolini S, Calbucci F, Andreoli A, Frezza G, Leonardi M, Spagnolli F, Ermani M (2008) MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol 26:2192–2197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calli C, Kitis O, Yunten N, Yurtseven T, Islekel S, Akalin T (2006) Perfusion and diffusion MR imaging in enhancing malignant cerebral tumors. Eur J Radiol 58:394–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rizzo L, Greco Crasto S, Garcia Moruno P, Cassoni P, Rudà R, Boccaletti R, Brosio M, De Lucchi R, Fava C (2009) Role of diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MR imaging for brain tumor characterisation. Radiol Med 114:645–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barajas RF, Chang JS, Sneed PK, Segal MR, McDermott MW, Cha S (2009) Distinguishing recurrent intra-axial metastatic tumor from radiation necrosis following gamma knife radiosurgery using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR 30:367–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Tomiguchi S, Shigematsu Y, Ikushima I, Kira T, Liang L, Ushio Y, Takahashi M (2000) Posttherapeutic intraaxial brain tumor: the value of perfusion-sensitive contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating tumor recurrence from nonneoplastic contrast-enhancing tissue. AJNR 21:901–909PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aronen HJ, Perkio J (2002) Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI of gliomas. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 12:501–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lev MH, Ozsunar Y, Henson JW (2004) Elevated relative cerebral blood volume of oligodendrogliomas: a confounder of glial tumor grading specificity using dynamic spin-echo MR susceptibility mapping. AJNR 25:214–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bisdas S, Naegele T, Ritz R, Dimostheni A, Pfannenberg C, Reimold M, Koh TS, Ernemann U (2011) Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acad Radiol 18:575–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mabray MC, Barajas RF, Cha S (2015) Modern brain tumor imaging. Brain Tumor Res Treat 3:8–23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lüdemann L, Grieger W, Wurm R, Wust P, Zimmer C (2005) Quantitative measurement of leakage volume and permeability in gliomas, meningiomas and brain metastases with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 23:833–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bulakbasi N, Kocaoglu M, Farzaliyev A, Tayfun C, Ucoz T, Somuncu I (2005) Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of perfusion MR imaging in primary and metastatic solitary malignant brain tumors. AJNR 26:2187–2199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cha S (2006) Update on brain tumor imaging: from anatomy to physiology. AJNR 27:475–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cha S, Lupo JM, Chen MH, Lamborn KR, McDermott MW, Berger MS, Nelson SJ, Dillon WP (2007) Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and single brain metastasis by peak height and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR 28:1078–1084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Law M, Cha S, Knopp EA, Johnson G, Arnett J, Litt AW (2002) High-grade gliomas and solitary metastases: differentiation by using perfusion and proton spectroscopic MR imaging. Radiology 222:715–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mills SJ, Thompson G, Jackson A (2012) Advanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers of cerebral metastases. Cancer Imaging 12:245–252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barajas RF Jr, Chang JS, Segal MR, Parsa AT, McDermott MW, Berger MS, Cha S (2009) Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 253:486–496CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoefnagels FW, Lagerwaard FJ, Sanchez E, Haasbeek CJ, Knol DL, Slotman BJ, Vandertop WP (2009) Radiological progression of cerebral metastases after radiosurgery: assessment of perfusion MRI for differentiating between necrosis and recurrence. J Neurol 256:878–887CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Romano A, Rossi Espagnet MC, Calabria LF, Coppola V, Figà Talamanca L, Cipriani V, Minniti G, Pierallini A, Fantozzi LM, Bozzao A (2012) Clinical applications of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion-weighted MR imaging in brain tumours. Radiol Med 117(3):445–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clarke JL, Chang S (2009) Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: challenges in brain tumor imaging. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 28:241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jensen RL (2009) Brain tumor hypoxia: tumorigenesis, angiogenesis, imaging, pseudoprogression, and as a therapeutic target. J Neuroonc 92:317–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fatterpekar GM, Galheigo D, Narayana A, Johnson G, Knopp E (2012) Treatment-related change versus tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas: a diagnostic conundrum—use of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DCS) perfusion MRI. AJR 198(1):19–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Law M, Oh S, Johnson G, Babb JS, Zagzag D, Golfinos J, Kelly PJ (2006) Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging predicts patient outcome as an adjunct to histopathology: a second reference standard in the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of low-grade gliomas. Neurosurgery 58:1099–1107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2018
corrected publication [March 2018]

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Muto
    • 1
  • Giulia Frauenfelder
    • 2
  • Rossana Senese
    • 3
  • Fabio Zeccolini
    • 1
  • Emiliano Schena
    • 4
  • Francesco Giurazza
    • 5
  • Hans Rolf Jäger
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of NeuroradiologyAONR CardarelliNaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversità Campus Bio-Medico di RomaRomeItaly
  3. 3.Emicenter European Medical ImagingCasavatore, NapoliItaly
  4. 4.Department of Measurement and Biomedical InstrumentationUniversità Campus Bio-Medico di RomaRomeItaly
  5. 5.Department of Interventional RadiologyAONR CardarelliNaplesItaly
  6. 6.Neuroradiological Academic Unit, Department of Brain Repair and RehabilitationUCL Institute of NeurologyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations