Advertisement

Radiology reporting of low-grade glioma growth underestimates tumor expansion

  • Chloe GuiEmail author
  • Jonathan C. Lau
  • Suzanne E. Kosteniuk
  • Donald H. Lee
  • Joseph F. Megyesi
Original Article - Tumor - Glioma
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Tumor – Glioma

Abstract

Background

An important aspect in the management of patients with diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs) involves monitoring the lesions via serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, radiological interpretations of LGG interval scans are often qualitative and thus difficult to use clinically.

Methods

To contextualize these assessments, we retrospectively compared radiological interpretations of LGG growth or stability to volume change measured by manual segmentation. Tumor diameter was also measured in one, two, and three dimensions to evaluate reported methods for assessment of glioma progression, including RECIST criteria, Macdonald/RANO criteria, and mean tumor diameter/ellipsoid method.

Results

Tumors evaluated as stable by radiologists grew a median volume of 5.1 mL (11.1%) relative to the comparison scan, and those evaluated as having grown had a median volume increase of 13.3 mL (23.7%). Diameter-based measurements corresponded well but tended to overestimate gold standard segmented volumes. In addition, agreement with segmented volume measurements improved from 17.6 ± 8.0 to 4.5 ± 5.8 to 3.9 ± 3.6 mm for diameter and from 104.0 ± 96.6 to 25.3 ± 36.8 to 15.9 ± 21.3 mL for volume with radiological measurements in one, two, and three dimensions, respectively. Measurement overestimation increased with tumor size.

Conclusions

Given accumulating evidence that LGG volume and growth are prognostic factors, there is a need for objective lesion measurement. Current radiological reporting workflows fail to appreciate and communicate the true expansion of LGGs. While volumetric analysis remains the gold standard for assessment of growth, careful diametric measurements in three dimensions may be an acceptable alternative.

Keywords

Low-grade glioma Neuro-oncology MRI Longitudinal growth quantification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. David R. Macdonald, a neuro-oncologist, for his expertise and insight during the course of this study.

Funding

C.G. and S.E.K. received research scholarships from the Summer Research Training Program at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at Western University and the Mach-Gaensslen Foundation of Canada. J.C.L. is funded through the Western University Clinical Investigator Program accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Doctoral Award Scholarship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee, Western University’s Research Ethics Board, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Mandonnet E, Delattre JY, Tanguy ML, Swanson KR, Carpentier AF, Duffau H, Cornu P, Van Effenterre R, Alvord EC, Capelle L (2003) Continuous growth of mean tumor diameter in a subset of grade II gliomas. Ann Neurol 53(4):524–528Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pallud J, Blonski M, Mandonnet E et al (2013) Velocity of tumor spontaneous expansion predicts long-term outcomes for diffuse low-grade gliomas. Neuro-Oncology 15(5):595–606Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pallud J, Taillandier L, Capelle L, Fontaine D, Peyre M, Ducray F, Duffau H, Mandonnet E (2012) Quantitative morphological magnetic resonance imaging follow-up of low-grade glioma: a plea for systematic measurement of growth rates. Neurosurgery 71(3):729–739Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peyre M, Cartalat-Carel S, Meyronet D et al (2010) Prolonged response without prolonged chemotherapy: a lesson from PCV chemotherapy in low-grade gliomas. Neuro-Oncology 12(10):1078–1082Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rees J, Watt H, Jäger HR, Benton C, Tozer D, Tofts P, Waldman A (2009) Volumes and growth rates of untreated adult low-grade gliomas indicate risk of early malignant transformation. Eur J Radiol 72(1):54–64Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brasil Caseiras G, Ciccarelli O, Altmann DR, Benton CE, Tozer DJ, Tofts PS, Yousry TA, Rees J, Waldman AD, Jäger HR (2009) Low-grade gliomas: six-month tumor growth predicts patient outcome better than admission tumor volume, relative cerebral blood volume, and apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 253(2):505–512Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hlaihel C, Guilloton L, Guyotat J, Streichenberger N, Honnorat J, Cotton F (2010) Predictive value of multimodality MRI using conventional, perfusion, and spectroscopy MR in anaplastic transformation of low-grade oligodendrogliomas. J Neuro-Oncol 97(1):73–80Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pallud J, Llitjos J-F, Dhermain F et al (2012) Dynamic imaging response following radiation therapy predicts long-term outcomes for diffuse low-grade gliomas. Neuro-Oncology 14(4):496–505Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pallud J, Mandonnet E, Duffau H, Kujas M, Guillevin R, Galanaud D, Taillandier L, Capelle L (2006) Prognostic value of initial magnetic resonance imaging growth rates for world health organization grade II gliomas. Ann Neurol 60(3):380–383Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gui C, Kosteniuk SE, Lau JC, Megyesi JF (2018) Tumor growth dynamics in serially-imaged low-grade glioma patients. J Neuro-Oncol 139(1):167–175Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC, Cairncross JG (1990) Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 8(7):1277–1280Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quant EC, Wen PY (2011) Response assessment in neuro-oncology. Curr Oncol Rep 13(1):50–56Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Den Bent MJ, Wefel JS, Schiff D et al (2011) Response assessment in neuro-oncology (a report of the RANO group): assessment of outcome in trials of diffuse low-grade gliomas. Lancet Oncol 12(6):583–593Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, Sykora R, Castillo R, Ballman KV, Erickson BJ (2006) Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neuro-Oncology 8(2):156–165Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kesari S, Schiff D, Drappatz J et al (2009) Phase II study of protracted daily temozolomide for low-grade gliomas in adults. Clin Cancer Res 15(1):330–337Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC, Gerig G (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31(3):1116–1128Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martin Bland J, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327(8476):307–310Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jakola AS, Moen KG, Solheim O, Kvistad K-A (2013) “No growth” on serial MRI scans of a low grade glioma? Acta Neurochir 155(12):2243–2244Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, Torkzad MR, Bodén K, Eriksson-Alm Y, Berg E, Fujii H, Kubo A, Blomqvist L (2008) Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. RadioGraphics 28(2):329–344Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dempsey MF, Condon BR, Hadley DM (2005) Measurement of tumor “size” in recurrent malignant glioma: 1D, 2D, or 3D? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26(4):770–776Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Provenzale JM, Ison C, DeLong D (2009) Bidimensional measurements in brain tumors: assessment of interobserver variability. Am J Roentgenol 193(6):515–522Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sorensen AG, Patel S, Harmath C et al (2001) Comparison of diameter and perimeter methods for tumor volume calculation. J Clin Oncol 19(2):551–557Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shah GD, Kesari S, Xu R, Batchelor TT, O’Neill AM, Hochberg FH, Levy B, Bradshaw J, Wen PY (2006) Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro-Oncology 8(1):38–46Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmitt P, Mandonnet E, Perdreau A, Angelini ED (2013) Effects of slice thickness and head rotation when measuring glioma sizes on MRI: in support of volume segmentation versus two largest diameters methods. J Neuro-Oncol 112(2):165–172Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Wen PY, Zhang W-T, Jain RK (2008) Response criteria for glioma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 5(11):634–644Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences (Neurosurgery)Schulich School of Medicine & DentistryLondonCanada
  2. 2.London Health Sciences CentreUniversity HospitalLondonCanada
  3. 3.Imaging Research LaboratoriesRobarts Research InstituteLondonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Medical Imaging, Schulich Medicine & DentistryWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations