Sequential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for Assessment of Tumor Progression in Patients with Low-Grade Glioma

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Delgado-López PD,
   3. Corrales-García EM,
   4. Martino J, et al

   . Diffuse low-grade glioma: a review on the new molecular classification, natural history and current management strategies. Clin Transl Oncol 2017;19:931–44 doi:10.1007/s12094-017-1631-4 pmid:28255650

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Larsen J,
   3. Wharton SB,
   4. McKevitt F, et al

   . ‘Low grade glioma’: an update for radiologists. Br J Radiol 2017;90:20160600 doi:10.1259/bjr.20160600 pmid:27925467

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Nahed BV,
   3. Redjal N,
   4. Brat DJ, et al

   . Management of patients with recurrence of diffuse low grade glioma: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol 2015;125:609–30 doi:10.1007/s11060-015-1910-2 pmid:26530264

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. van den Bent MJ,
   3. Wefel JS,
   4. Schiff D, et al

   . Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diffuse low-grade gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:583–93 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70057-2 pmid:21474379

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Fouke SJ,
   3. Benzinger T,
   4. Gibson D, et al

   . The role of imaging in the management of adults with diffuse low grade glioma: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol 2015;125:457–79 doi:10.1007/s11060-015-1908-9 pmid:26530262

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Asari S,
   3. Makabe T,
   4. Katayama S, et al

   . Assessment of the pathological grade of astrocytic gliomas using an MRI score. Neuroradiology 1994;36:308–10 doi:10.1007/BF00593267 pmid:8065577

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Kim MM,
   3. Lawrence TS,
   4. Cao Y

   . Advances in magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography imaging: assessing response in the treatment of low-grade glioma. Semin Radiat Oncol 2015;25:172–80 doi:10.1016/j.semradonc.2015.02.003 pmid:26050587

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Pallud J,
   3. Capelle L,
   4. Taillandier L, et al

   . Prognostic significance of imaging contrast enhancement for WHO grade II gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2009;11:176–82 doi:10.1215/15228517-2008-066 pmid:18697954

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Vos MJ,
   3. Uitdehaag BM,
   4. Barkhof F, et al

   . Interobserver variability in the radiological assessment of response to chemotherapy in glioma. Neurology 2003;60:826–30 doi:10.1212/01.WNL.0000049467.54667.92 pmid:12629241

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Hayashida Y,
    3. Hirai T,
    4. Morishita S, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging of metastatic brain tumors: comparison with histologic type and tumor cellularity. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1419–25 pmid:16908550

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Chenevert TL,
    3. Stegman LD,
    4. Taylor JM, et al

    . Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: an early surrogate marker of therapeutic efficacy in brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:2029–36 doi:10.1093/jnci/92.24.2029 pmid:11121466

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Cui Y,
    3. Ma L,
    4. Chen X, et al

    . Lower apparent diffusion coefficients indicate distinct prognosis in low-grade and high-grade glioma. J Neurooncol 2014;119:377–85 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1490-6 pmid:24874469

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Hathout L,
    3. Ellingson BM,
    4. Cloughesy TF, et al

    . Patient-specific characterization of the invasiveness and proliferation of low-grade gliomas using serial MR imaging and a mathematical model of tumor growth. Oncol Rep 2015;33:2883–88 doi:10.3892/or.2015.3926 pmid:25962999

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Kitis O,
    3. Altay H,
    4. Calli C, et al

    . Minimum apparent diffusion coefficients in the evaluation of brain tumors. Eur J Radiol 2005;55:393–400 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.02.004 pmid:16129247

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Murakami R,
    3. Hirai T,
    4. Sugahara T, et al

    . Grading astrocytic tumors by using apparent diffusion coefficient parameters: superiority of a one- versus two-parameter pilot method. Radiology 2009;251:838–45 doi:10.1148/radiol.2513080899 pmid:19318585

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Hein PA,
    3. Eskey CJ,
    4. Dunn JF, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging in the follow-up of treated high-grade gliomas: tumor recurrence versus radiation injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:201–09 pmid:14970018

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Higano S,
    3. Yun X,
    4. Kumabe T, et al

    . Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology 2006;241:839–46 doi:10.1148/radiol.2413051276 pmid:17032910

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Brasil Caseiras G,
    3. Ciccarelli O,
    4. Altmann DR, et al

    . Low-grade gliomas: six-month tumor growth predicts patient outcome better than admission tumor volume, relative cerebral blood volume, and apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 2009;253:505–12 doi:10.1148/radiol.2532081623 pmid:19789244

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Chenevert TL,
    3. Malyarenko DI,
    4. Newitt D, et al

    . Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling. Transl Oncol 2014;7:65–71 doi:10.1593/tlo.13811 pmid:24772209

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Kang Y,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Kim YJ, et al

    . Gliomas: histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging–correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 2011;261:882–90 doi:10.1148/radiol.11110686 pmid:21969667

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Wen Q,
    3. Jalilian L,
    4. Lupo JM, et al

    . Comparison of ADC metrics and their association with outcome for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma being treated with radiation therapy, temozolomide, erlotinib and bevacizumab. J Neurooncol 2015;121:331–39 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1636-6 pmid:25351579

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. McDonald CR,
    3. Delfanti RL,
    4. Krishnan AP, et al

    . Restriction spectrum imaging predicts response to bevacizumab in patients with high-grade glioma. Neuro Oncol 2016;18:1579–90 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now063 pmid:27106406

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Cha S

    . Update on brain tumor imaging: from anatomy to physiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:475–87 pmid:16551981

    FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Tozer DJ,
    3. Jäger HR,
    4. Danchaivijitr N, et al

    . Apparent diffusion coefficient histograms may predict low-grade glioma subtype. NMR Biomed 2007;20:49–57 doi:10.1002/nbm.1091 pmid:16986106

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Jung SC,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Yeom JA, et al

    . Cerebral blood volume analysis in glioblastomas using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: a comparison of manual and semiautomatic segmentation methods. PLoS One 2013;8:e69323 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069323 pmid:23950891

    CrossRefPubMed