Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2020, 164(3):307-313 | DOI: 10.5507/bp.2019.039

In silico study of pseudoprogression in glioblastoma: collaboration of radiologists and radiation oncologists in the estimation of extent of high dose RT region

Renata Belanovaa,b, Andrea Sprlakova-Pukovac, Michal Standaraa, Eva Janua,b, Renata Koukalovab,d, Jan Kristeka,b, Petr Burkone,f, Ivana Kolouskovab, Tomas Prochazkae,f, Petr Pospisile,f, Arnab Chakravartig, Pavel Slampae,f, Ondrej Slabyh,i,j, Tomas Kazdae,f,h
a Department of Radiology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic
b Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
c Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine Masaryk Universit Brno, Jihlavska 20, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
d Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic
e Department of Radiation Oncology, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic
f Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
g Radiation Oncology Department, Arthur James Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, 460 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
h Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
i Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
j Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic

Background and Aim. Oncologists play a vital role in the interpretation of radiographic results in glioblastoma patients. Molecular pathology and information on radiation treatment protocols among others are all important for accurate interpretation of radiology images. One important issue that may arise in interpreting such images is the phenomenon of tumor "pseudoprogression"; oncologists need to be able to distinguish this effect from true disease progression.Exact knowledge about the location of high-dose radiotherapy region is needed for valid determination of pseudoprogression according to RANO (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) criteria in neurooncology. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the radiologists' understanding of a radiotherapy high-dose region in routine clinical practice since radiation oncologists do not always report 3-dimensional isodoses when ordering follow up imaging.

Methods: Eight glioblastoma patients who underwent postresection radiotherapy were included in this study. Four radiologists worked with their pre-radiotherapy planning MR, however, they were blinded to RT target volumes which were defined by radiation oncologists according to current guidelines. The aim was to draw target volume for high dose RT fields (that is the region, where they would consider that there may be a pseudoprogression in future MRI scans). Many different indices describing structure differences were analyzed in comparison with original per-protocol RT target volumes.

Results: The median volume for RT high dose field was 277 ccm (range 218 to 401 ccm) as defined per protocol by radiation oncologist and 87 ccm (range 32-338) as defined by radiologists (median difference of paired difference 31%, range 15-112%). The Median Dice index of similarity was 0.46 (range 0.14 - 0.78), the median Hausdorff distance 25 mm.

Conclusion: Continuing effort to improve education on specific procedures in RT and in radiology as well as automatic tools for exporting RT targets is needed in order to increase specificity and sensitivity in response evaluation.

Keywords: pseudoprogression, RANO, glioblastoma, radiotherapy, high-dose field

Received: February 25, 2019; Revised: May 14, 2019; Accepted: August 12, 2019; Prepublished online: September 13, 2019; Published: September 17, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Belanova, R., Sprlakova-Pukova, A., Standara, M., Janu, E., Koukalova, R., Kristek, J., ... Kazda, T. (2020). In silico study of pseudoprogression in glioblastoma: collaboration of radiologists and radiation oncologists in the estimation of extent of high dose RT region. Biomedical papers164(3), 307-313. doi: 10.5507/bp.2019.039
Download citation

References

  1. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen AG, Galanis E, Degroot J, Wick W, Gilbert MR, Lassman AB, Tsien C, Mikkelsen T, Wong ET, Chamberlain MC, Stupp R, Lamborn KR, Vogelbaum MA, van den Bent MJ, Chang SM. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(11):1963-72. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Chang SM, Wen PY, Vogelbaum MA, Macdonald DR, van den Bent MJ. Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO): more than imaging criteria for malignant glioma. Neuro-Oncology Practice 2015;2(4):205-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Wen PY, Chang SM, Bent MJ Van Den, Vogelbaum MA, Macdonald DR, Lee EQ. Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Clinical Trials. J Clin Oncol 2017;35(21):2439-49. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Thust SC, Bent MJ Van Den, Smits M. Pseudoprogression of Brain Tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26171 [Epub ahead of print] Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. P Radbruch A, Fladt J, Kickingereder P, Wiestler B, Nowosielski M, Bäumer P, Schlemmer HP, Wick A, Heiland S, Wick W, Bendszus M.seudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: clinical relevance despite low incidence. Neuro Oncol 2015;17(1):151-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Linhares P, Carvalho B, Figueiredo R, Reis RM, Vaz R. Early pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy in glioblastoma patients: The value of RANO evaluation. J Oncol 2013;2013:690585. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Rowe LS, Butman JA, Mackey M, Shih JH, Cooley-Zgela T, Ning H, Gilbert MR, Smart DK, Camphausen K, Krauze AV. Differentiating pseudoprogression from true progression : analysis of radiographic , biologic , and clinical clues in GBM. J Neurooncol 2018 doi: 10.1007/s11060-018-2855-z [Epub ahead of print] Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Niyazi M, Brada M, Chalmers AJ, Combs SE, Erridge SC, Fiorentino A, Grosu AL, Lagerwaard FJ, Minniti G, Mirimanoff RO, Ricardi U, Short SC, Weber DC, Belka C. ESTRO-ACROP guideline "target delineation of glioblastomas". Radiother Oncol 2016;118(1):35-42. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Wee CW, Kim E, Kim N, Kim IA, Kim TM, Kim YJ, Park CK, Kim JW, Kim CY, Choi SH, Kim JH, Park SH, Choe G, Lee ST, Chang JH, Kim SH, Suh CO, Kim IH.Novel recursive partitioning analysis classification for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A multi-institutional study highlighting the MGMT promoter methylation and IDH1 gene mutation status. Radiother Oncol 2017;123(1):106-11. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Kazda T, Bulik M, Pospisil P, Lakomy R, Smrcka M, Slampa P, Jancalek R. Advanced MRI increases the diagnostic accuracy of recurrent glioblastoma: Single institution thresholds and validation of MR spectroscopy and diffusion weighted MR imaging. Neuroimage Clin 2016;11:316-21. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Galldiks N, Kocher M, Langen KJ. Pseudoprogression after glioma therapy: an update. Expert Rev Neurother 2017;17(11):1109-15. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Ellingson BM, Wen PY, Cloughesy TF. Modified Criteria for Radiographic Response Assessment in Glioblastoma Clinical Trials. Neurotherapeutics 2017;14(2):307-20. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Okada H, Weller M, Huang R, Finocchiaro G, Gilbert MR, Wick W, Ellingson BM, Hashimoto N, Pollack IF, Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Herold-Mende C, Nayak L, Panigrahy A, Pope WB, Prins R, Sampson JH, Wen PY, Reardon DA.Immunotherapy Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (iRANO): A Report of the RANO Working Group. Lancet Oncol 2015;16(15):e534-e542. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Dirven L, Armstrong TS, Blakeley JO, Brown PD, Grant R, Jalali R, Leeper H, Mendoza T, Nayak L, Reijneveld JC, Le Rhun E, Walbert T, Weller M, Wen PY, Taphoorn MJB.Working plan for the use of patient-reported outcome measures in adults with brain tumours: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) initiative. Lancet Oncol 2018;19(3):e173-e180. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Camidge DR, Lee EQ, Lin NU, Margolin K, Ahluwalia MS, Bendszus M, Chang SM, Dancey J, de Vries EGE, Harris GJ, Hodi FS, Lassman AB, Macdonald DR, Peereboom DM, Schiff D, Soffietti R, van den Bent MJ, Wefel JS, Wen PY.Clinical trial design for systemic agents in patients with brain metastases from solid tumours: a guideline by the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases working group. Lancet Oncol 2018;19(1):e20-e32. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Alexander BM, Brown PD, Ahluwalia MS, Aoyama H, Baumert BG, Chang SM, Gaspar LE, Kalkanis SN, Macdonald DR, Mehta MP, Soffietti R, Suh JH, van den Bent MJ, Vogelbaum MA, Wefel JS, Lee EQ, Wen PY; Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) group. Clinical trial design for local therapies for brain metastases: a guideline by the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases working group. Lancet Oncol 2018;19(1):e33-e42. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Thust SC, Heiland S, Falini A, Jäger HR, Waldman AD, Sundgren PC, Godi C, Katsaros VK, Ramos A, Bargallo N, Vernooij MW, Yousry T, Bendszus M, Smits M.Glioma imaging in Europe: A survey of 220 centres and recommendations for best clinical practice. Eur Radiol 2018;28(8):3306-17. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJ, Belanger K, Brandes AA, Marosi C, Bogdahn U, Curschmann J, Janzer RC, Ludwin SK, Gorlia T, Allgeier A, Lacombe D, Cairncross JG, Eisenhauer E, Mirimanoff RO; 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(10):987-96. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Kazda T, Dziacky A, Burkon P, Pospisil P, Slavik M, Rehak Z, Jancalek R, Slampa P, Slaby O, Lakomy R. Radiotherapy of glioblastoma 15 years after the landmark Stupp's trial: More controversies than standards? Radiol Oncol 2018;52(2):121-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Kazda T, Pafundi DH, Kraling A, Bradley T, Lowe VJ, Brinkmann DH, Laak NN. Dosimetric impact of amino acid positron emission tomography imaging for target delineation in radiation treatment planning for high-grade gliomas. Phys Imag Radiat Oncol 2018;6:94-100. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Pafundi DH, Laack NN, Youland RS, Parney IF, Lowe VJ, Giannini C, Kemp BJ, Grams MP, Morris JM, Hoover JM, Hu LS, Sarkaria JN, Brinkmann DH.Biopsy validation of 18F-DOPA PET and biodistribution in gliomas for neurosurgical planning and radiotherapy target delineation: results of a prospective pilot study. Neuro Oncol 2013;15(8):1058-67. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/not002 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.