Advertisement

Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 139, Issue 1, pp 145–152 | Cite as

Differentiating pseudoprogression from true progression: analysis of radiographic, biologic, and clinical clues in GBM

  • Lindsay S. Rowe
  • John A. Butman
  • Megan Mackey
  • Joanna H. Shih
  • Theresa Cooley-Zgela
  • Holly Ning
  • Mark R. Gilbert
  • DeeDee K. Smart
  • Kevin Camphausen
  • Andra V. Krauze
Clinical Study

Abstract

Introduction

Pseudoprogression (PsP) is a diagnostic dilemma in glioblastoma (GBM) after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features may fail to distinguish PsP from early true progression (eTP), however clinical findings may aid in their distinction.

Methods

Sixty-seven patients received CRT for GBM between 2003 and 2016, and had pre- and post-treatment imaging suitable for retrospective evaluation using RANO criteria. Patients with signs of progression within the first 12-weeks post-radiation (P-12) were selected. Lesions that improved or stabilized were defined as PsP, and lesions that progressed were defined as eTP.

Results

The median follow up for all patients was 17.6 months. Signs of progression developed in 35/67 (52.2%) patients within P-12. Of these, 20/35 (57.1%) were subsequently defined as eTP and 15/35 (42.9%) as PsP. MRI demonstrated increased contrast enhancement in 84.2% of eTP and 100% of PsP, and elevated CBV in 73.7% for eTP and 93.3% for PsP. A decrease in FLAIR was not seen in eTP patients, but was seen in 26.7% PsP patients. Patients with eTP were significantly more likely to require increased steroid doses or suffer clinical decline than PsP patients (OR 4.89, 95% CI 1.003–19.27; p = 0.046). KPS declined in 25% with eTP and none of the PsP patients.

Conclusions

MRI imaging did not differentiate eTP from PsP, however, KPS decline or need for increased steroids was significantly more common in eTP versus PsP. Investigation and standardization of clinical assessments in response criteria may help address the diagnostic dilemma of pseudoprogression after frontline treatment for GBM.

Keywords

Pseudoprogression Glioblastoma Karnofsky performance status Response assessment in neuro-oncology Radiation therapy 

Notes

Funding

This research was funded by the intramural research program at the National Cancer Institute (Grant Number ZID BC 010990).

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 in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Chamberlain MC et al (2007) Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 82(1):81–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fink J, Born D, Chamberlain MC (2011) Pseudoprogression: relevance with respect to treatment of high-grade gliomas. Curr Treat Options Oncol 12(3):240–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brandes AA et al (2008) MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol 26(13):2192–2197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Linhares P et al (2013) Early pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy in glioblastoma patients: the value of RANO evaluation. J Oncol 2013:690585CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young RJ et al (2013) MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging 37(1):41–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li H et al (2016) IDH mutation and MGMT promoter methylation are associated with the pseudoprogression and improved prognosis of glioblastoma multiforme patients who have undergone concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide-based chemoradiotherapy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 151:31–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pouleau HB et al (2012) High levels of cellular proliferation predict pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients. Int J Oncol 40(4):923–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wen PY et al (2010) Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 28(11):1963–1972CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerstner ER et al (2009) Effect of adding temozolomide to radiation therapy on the incidence of pseudo-progression. J Neurooncol 94(1):97–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kong DS et al (2011) 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 32(2):382–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Balana C et al (2017) Pseudoprogression as an adverse event of glioblastoma therapy. Cancer Med 6(12):2858–2866CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Radbruch A et al (2015) Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: clinical relevance despite low incidence. Neuro Oncol 17(1):151–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gunjur A et al (2011) Early post-treatment pseudo-progression amongst glioblastoma multiforme patients treated with radiotherapy and temozolomide: a retrospective analysis. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 55(6):603–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ellingson BM, Wen PY, Cloughesy TF (2017) Modified Criteria for radiographic response assessment in glioblastoma clinical trials. Neurotherapeutics 14(2):307–320CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nowosielski M, Wen PY (2018) Imaging criteria in neuro-oncology. Semin Neurol 38(1):24–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Di Stefano AL et al (2014) Facing contrast-enhancing gliomas: perfusion MRI in grade III and grade IV gliomas according to tumor area. Biomed Res Int 2014: 154350PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Law M et al (2008) Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 247(2):490–498CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thomas AA et al (2015) Dynamic contrast enhanced T1 MRI perfusion differentiates pseudoprogression from recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 125(1):183–190CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gahramanov S et al (2013) Pseudoprogression of glioblastoma after chemo- and radiation therapy: diagnosis by using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with ferumoxytol versus gadoteridol and correlation with survival. Radiology 266(3):842–852CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gahramanov S et al (2014) Diagnosis of pseudoprogression using MRI perfusion in patients with glioblastoma multiforme may predict improved survival. CNS Oncol 3(6):389–400CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nasseri M et al (2014) Evaluation of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma multiforme using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging with ferumoxytol calls RANO criteria into question. Neuro Oncol 16(8):1146–1154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nayak L et al (2014) The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) Scale: a tool to assess neurologic function for integration in the Radiologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Criteria. Neurology 82(10 Supplement):S22.005Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Prados MD (2004) Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis. Neuro Oncol 6(3):227–235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ho J et al (2013) Chemoirradiation for glioblastoma multiforme: The National Cancer Institute experience. PLoS ONE 8(8):e70745CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoon RG et al (2017) Different diagnostic values of imaging parameters to predict pseudoprogression in glioblastoma subgroups stratified by MGMT promoter methylation. Eur Radiol 27(1):255–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Motegi H et al (2013) IDH1 mutation as a potential novel biomarker for distinguishing pseudoprogression from true progression in patients with glioblastoma treated with temozolomide and radiotherapy. Brain Tumor Pathol 30(2):67–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gzell C et al (2016) Proliferation index predicts survival after second craniotomy within 6 months of adjuvant radiotherapy for high-grade glioma. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 28(3):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kang HC et al (2011) Pseudoprogression in patients with malignant gliomas treated with concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy: potential role of p53. J Neurooncol 102(1):157–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Romano A et al (2013) Apparent diffusion coefficient obtained by magnetic resonance imaging as a prognostic marker in glioblastomas: correlation with MGMT promoter methylation status. Eur Radiol 23(2):513–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanghera P et al (2010) Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme. Can J Neurol Sci 37(1):36–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roldan GB et al (2009) Population-based study of pseudoprogression after chemoradiotherapy in GBM. Can J Neurol Sci 36(5):617–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Young RJ et al (2011) Potential utility of conventional MRI signs in diagnosing pseudoprogression in glioblastoma. Neurology 76(22):1918–1924CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay S. Rowe
    • 1
  • John A. Butman
    • 2
  • Megan Mackey
    • 1
  • Joanna H. Shih
    • 3
  • Theresa Cooley-Zgela
    • 1
  • Holly Ning
    • 1
  • Mark R. Gilbert
    • 4
  • DeeDee K. Smart
    • 1
  • Kevin Camphausen
    • 1
  • Andra V. Krauze
    • 1
  1. 1.Radiation Oncology BranchNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Radiology and Imaging SciencesNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Clinical Research CenterNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  4. 4.Neuro-Oncology BranchNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations