Advanced

AJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mullins, M. E. Articles by Lev, M. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mullins, M. E. Articles by Lev, M. H.

American Journal of Neuroradiology 26:1967-1972, September 2005
© 2005 American Society of Neuroradiology

BRAIN

Radiation Necrosis Versus Glioma Recurrence: Conventional MR Imaging Clues to Diagnosis

Mark E. Mullins^a,b, Glenn D. Barest^c,d, Pamela W. Schaefer^a,b, Fred H. Hochberg^b,e,f, R. Gilberto Gonzalez^a and Michael H. Lev^a,b

^a Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
^b Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
^c Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA
^d Boston University Medical School, Boston, MA
^e Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
^f Brain Tumor Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

Address correspondence to Mark E. Mullins, MD, PhD, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conventional MR imaging findings are considered to be inadequate for reliably distinguishing radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence in patients with glioma. Despite this belief, we hypothesized that certain conventional MR imaging findings, alone or in combination, though not definitive, may favor one or another of these diagnoses in proton beam–treated patients with new enhancing lesions on serial scanning.

METHODS: MR imaging findings (axial T1-, T2-, and post-gadolinium T1-weighted) of 27 proton beam radiation therapy patients with high-grade gliomas were retrospectively reviewed. Entry criteria included new MR imaging enhancing lesions after treatment and histologically unequivocal biopsy proof of diagnosis. Readers rated corpus callosum involvement, midline spread, subependymal spread, new discrete multiple enhancing foci, a "spreading wavefront" appearance, and septum pellucidum involvement. Statistical analysis was by the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS: Corpus callosum involvement in combination with multiple other findings was highly associated with progressive glioma. These combinations included involvement of the corpus callosum with multiple enhancing foci (P = .02), involvement of the corpus callosum with crossing the midline and multiple enhancing lesions (P = .04), and involvement of the corpus callosum with subependymal spread and multiple enhancing lesions (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS: In proton beam–treated patients with glioma, corpus callosum involvement, in conjunction with multiple enhancing lesions with or without crossing of the midline and subependymal spread, favors predominant glioma progression. Overall, combinations of enhancement patterns were more likely than individual patterns to distinguish necrosis from predominant tumor progression. Together with clinical and functional imaging findings, these results may assist in determining the need for biopsy.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. A. Altman, D. S. Atkinson Jr, and D. J. Brat Best Cases from the AFIP: Glioblastoma Multiforme RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 883 - 888. [Full Text] [PDF]