4.7 Article

Potential utility of conventional MRI signs in diagnosing pseudoprogression in glioblastoma

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 76, 期 22, 页码 1918-1924

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31821d74e7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Genentech, Inc.
  2. Schering-Plough Corp/Merck Serono
  3. Exelixis Inc.
  4. NIH/NCI
  5. BCured Foundation
  6. Collaborative Ependymoma Research Network (CERN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the potential utility of conventional MRI signs in differentiating pseudoprogression (PsP) from early progression (EP). Methods: This retrospective study reviewed initial postradiotherapy MRI scans of 321 patients with glioblastoma undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy. A total of 93 patients were found to have new or increased enhancing mass lesions, raising the possibility of PsP. Final diagnosis of PsP or EP was established upon review of surgical specimens from a second resection or by clinical and radiologic follow-up. A total of 11 MRI signs potentially helpful in the differentiation between PsP and EP were examined on the initial post-RT MRI and were correlated with the final diagnosis through chi(2) or Fisher exact test. Results: Sixty-three (67.7%) of the 93 patients had EP, of which 22 (34.9%) were diagnosed by pathology. Thirty patients (32.3%) had PsP; 6 (16.7% of the 30) were diagnosed by pathology. Subependymal enhancement was predictive for EP (p = 0.001) with 38.1% sensitivity, 93.3% specificity, and 41.8% negative predictive value. The other 10 signs had no predictive value (p = 0.06-1.0). Conclusions: Conventional MRI signs have limited utility in diagnosing PsP in patients with recently treated glioblastomas and worsening enhancing lesions. We did not find a sign with a high negative predictive value for PsP that would have been the most useful for the clinical physician. When present, subependymal spread of the enhancing lesion is a useful MRI marker in identifying EP rather than PsP. Neurology (R) 2011; 76: 1918-1924

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据