Vessel Type Determined by Vessel Architectural Imaging Improves Differentiation between Early Tumor Progression and Pseudoprogression in Glioblastoma

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Kruser TJ,
   2. Mehta MP,
   3. Robins HI

   . Pseudoprogression after glioma therapy: a comprehensive review. Expert Rev Neurother 2013;13:389–403 doi:10.1586/ern.13.7 pmid:23545054

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Jensen RL

   . Brain tumor hypoxia: tumorigenesis, angiogenesis, imaging, pseudoprogression, and as a therapeutic target. J Neurooncol 2009;92:317–35 doi:10.1007/s11060-009-9827-2 pmid:19357959

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. New P

   . Radiation injury to the nervous system. Curr Opin Neurol 2001;14:725–34 doi:10.1097/00019052-200112000-00008 pmid:11723380

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Barajas RF Jr.,
   2. Chang JS,
   3. Segal MR, et al

   . Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009;253:486–96 doi:10.1148/radiol.2532090007 pmid:19789240

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Kong DS,
   2. Kim ST,
   3. Kim EH, et al

   . Diagnostic dilemma of pseudoprogression in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastomas: the role of assessing relative cerebral blood flow volume and oxygen-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:382–87 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2286 pmid:21252041

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Suh CH,
   2. Kim HS,
   3. Jung SC, et al

   . Multiparametric MRI as a potential surrogate endpoint for decision-making in early treatment response following concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2018;28:2628–38 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-5262-5 pmid:29374321

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Patel P,
   2. Baradaran H,
   3. Delgado D, et al

   . MR perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of high-grade gliomas after treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:118–27 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now148 pmid:27502247

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Chakhoyan A,
   2. Yao J,
   3. Leu K, et al

   . Validation of vessel size imaging (VSI) in high-grade human gliomas using magnetic resonance imaging, image-guided biopsies, and quantitative immunohistochemistry. Sci Rep 2019;9:2846 doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37564-w pmid:30808879

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Emblem KE,
   2. Mouridsen K,
   3. Bjornerud A, et al

   . Vessel architectural imaging identifies cancer patient responders to anti-angiogenic therapy. Nat Med 2013;19:1178–83 doi:10.1038/nm.3289 pmid:23955713

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Dennie J,
    2. Mandeville JB,
    3. Boxerman JL, et al

    . NMR imaging of changes in vascular morphology due to tumor angiogenesis. Magn Reson Med 1998;40:793–99 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910400602 pmid:9840821

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Boxerman JL,
    2. Hamberg LM,
    3. Rosen BR, et al

    . MR contrast due to intravascular magnetic susceptibility perturbations. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:555–66 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910340412 pmid:8524024

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Kiselev VG,
    2. Strecker R,
    3. Ziyeh S, et al

    . Vessel size imaging in humans. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:553–63 doi:10.1002/mrm.20383 pmid:15723391

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Louis DN,
    2. Perry A,
    3. Reifenberger G, et al

    . The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 pmid:27157931

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Stupp R,
    2. Mason WP,
    3. van den Bent MJ, et al

    ; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor and Radiotherapy Groups; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005;352:987–96 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043330 pmid:15758009

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Wen PY,
    2. Macdonald DR,
    3. Reardon DA, et al

    . Updated Response Assessment Criteria for High-Grade Gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963–72 doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 pmid:20231676

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Weisskoff RM,
    2. Boxerman JL,
    3. Sorensen AG, et al

    . Simultaneous blood volume and permeabilitymapping using a single Gd-based contrastinjection. In: Proceedings of the Society of Magnetic Resonance, second annual meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA. August 6–12, 1994
17. 17.↵
    1. Boxerman JL,
    2. Schmainda KM,
    3. Weisskoff RM

    . Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:859–67 pmid:16611779

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Stadlbauer A,
    2. Zimmermann M,
    3. Oberndorfer S, et al

    . Vascular hysteresis loops and vascular architecture mapping in patients with glioblastoma treated with antiangiogenic therapy. Sci Rep 2017;7:8508 doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09048-w pmid:28819189

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Xu C,
    2. Kiselev VG,
    3. Moller HE, et al

    . Dynamic hysteresis between gradient echo and spin echo attenuations in dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Magn Reson Med 2013;69:981–91 doi:10.1002/mrm.24326 pmid:22611004

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Digernes I,
    2. Bjornerud A,
    3. Vatnehol SA, et al

    . A theoretical framework for determining cerebral vascular function and heterogeneity from dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2017;37:2237–48 doi:10.1177/0271678X17694187 pmid:28273722

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Madsen MT

    . A simplified formulation of the gamma variate function. Phys Med Biol 1992;37:1597–1600 doi:10.1088/0031-9155/37/7/010

    CrossRefWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Press WH,
    2. Flannery BP,
    3. Teukolsky SA, et al

    . Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press; 1988
23. 23.↵
    1. Han K,
    2. Song K,
    3. Choi BW

    . How to develop, validate, and compare clinical prediction models involving radiological parameters: study design and statistical methods. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:339–50 doi:10.3348/kjr.2016.17.3.339 pmid:27134523

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Pries AR,
    2. Hopfner M,
    3. Le Noble F, et al

    . The shunt problem: control of functional shunting in normal and tumour vasculature. Nat Rev Cancer 2010;10:587–93 doi:10.1038/nrc2895 pmid:20631803

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Mathivet T,
    2. Bouleti C,
    3. Van Woensel M, et al

    . Dynamic stroma reorganization drives blood vessel dysmorphia during glioma growth. Embo Mol Med 2017;9:1629–45 doi:10.15252/emmm.201607445 pmid:29038312

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    1. Stadlbauer A,
    2. Eyupoglu I,
    3. Buchfelder M, et al

    . Vascular architecture mapping for early detection of glioblastoma recurrence. Neurosurg Focus 2019;47:E14 doi:10.3171/2019.9.FOCUS19613 pmid:31786560

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. van Dijken BR,
    2. van Laar PJ,
    3. Holtman GA, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with high-grade glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2017;27:4129–44 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4789-9 pmid:28332014

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Nakada M,
    2. Kita D,
    3. Watanabe T, et al

    . Aberrant signaling pathways in glioma. Cancers (Basel) 2011;3:3242–78 doi:10.3390/cancers3033242 pmid:24212955

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Lupo JM,
    2. Essock-Burns E,
    3. Molinaro AM, et al

    . Using susceptibility-weighted imaging to determine response to combined anti-angiogenic, cytotoxic, and radiation therapy in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro Oncol 2013;15:480–89 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos325 pmid:23393208

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Lupo JM,
    2. Chuang CF,
    3. Chang SM, et al

    . 7-Tesla susceptibility-weighted imaging to assess the effects of radiotherapy on normal-appearing brain in patients with glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82:e493–500 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.05.046 pmid:22000750

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Welker K,
    2. Boxerman J,
    3. Kalnin A, et al

    ; American Society of Functional Neuroradiology MR Perfusion Standards and Practice Subcommittee of the ASFNR Clinical Practice Committee. ASFNR recommendations for clinical performance of MR dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:E41–51 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4341 pmid:25907520

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    1. Cha S,
    2. Knopp EA,
    3. Johnson G, et al

    . Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2002;223:11–29 doi:10.1148/radiol.2231010594 pmid:11930044

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. 33.↵
    1. Hu LS,
    2. Eschbacher JM,
    3. Heiserman JE, et al

    . Reevaluating the imaging definition of tumor progression: perfusion MRI quantifies recurrent glioblastoma tumor fraction, pseudoprogression, and radiation necrosis to predict survival. Neuro Oncol 2012;14:919–30 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos112 pmid:22561797

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Prah MA,
    2. Al-Gizawiy MM,
    3. Mueller WM, et al

    . Spatial discrimination of glioblastoma and treatment effect with histologically-validated perfusion and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging metrics. J Neurooncol 2018;136:13–21 doi:10.1007/s11060-017-2617-3

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Zhang K,
    2. Yun SD,
    3. Triphan SM, et al

    . Vessel architecture imaging using multiband gradient-echo/spin-echo EPI. PLos One 2019;14:e0220939 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220939 pmid:31398234

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Boxerman JL,
    2. Quarles CC,
    3. Hu LS, et al

    ; Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition Imaging Standardization Steering Committee. Consensus recommendations for a dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI protocol for use in high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2020;22:1262–75 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa141 pmid:32516388

    CrossRefPubMed