-
Translational Pediatrics Jul 2014While traditional computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging illustrate the structural morphology of brain pathology, newer, dynamic imaging techniques... (Review)
Review
While traditional computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging illustrate the structural morphology of brain pathology, newer, dynamic imaging techniques are able to show the movement of contrast throughout the brain parenchyma and across the blood-brain barrier (BBB). These data, in combination with pharmacokinetic models, can be used to investigate BBB permeability, which has wide-ranging applications in the diagnosis and management of central nervous system (CNS) tumors in children. In the first part of this paper, we review the technical principles underlying four imaging modalities used to evaluate BBB permeability: PET, dynamic CT, dynamic T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and dynamic T2-weighted susceptibility contrast MR. We describe the data that can be derived from each method, provide some caveats to data interpretation, and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the different techniques. In the second part of this paper, we review the clinical applications that have been reported with permeability imaging data, including diagnosing the nature of a lesion found on imaging (neoplastic versus non-neoplastic, tumor type, tumor grade, recurrence versus pseudoprogression), predicting the natural history of a tumor, monitoring angiogenesis and tracking response to anti-angiogenic agents, optimizing chemotherapy agent selection, and aiding in the development of new antineoplastic drugs and methods to increase local delivery of chemotherapeutics.
PubMed: 26835339
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2224-4336.2014.07.01 -
European Radiology Experimental Jan 2020A wide range of cancer immunotherapy approaches has been developed including non-specific immune-stimulants such as cytokines, cancer vaccines, immune checkpoint...
A wide range of cancer immunotherapy approaches has been developed including non-specific immune-stimulants such as cytokines, cancer vaccines, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and adoptive T cell therapy. Among them, ICIs are the most commonly used and intensively studied. Since 2011, these drugs have received marketing authorisation for melanoma, lung, bladder, renal, and head and neck cancers, with remarkable and long-lasting treatment response in some patients. The novel mechanism of action of ICIs, with immune and T cell activation, leads to unusual patterns of response on imaging, with the advent of so-called pseudoprogression being more pronounced and frequently observed when compared to other anticancer therapies. Pseudoprogression, described in about 2-10% of patients treated with ICIs, corresponds to an increase of tumour burden and/or the appearance of new lesions due to infiltration by activated T cells before the disease responds to therapy. To overcome the limitation of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) to assess these specific changes, new imaging criteria-so-called immune-related response criteria and then immune-related RECIST (irRECIST)-were proposed. The major modification involved the inclusion of the measurements of new target lesions into disease assessments and the need for a 4-week re-assessment to confirm or not confirm progression. The RECIST working group introduced the new concept of "unconfirmed progression", into the irRECIST. This paper reviews current immunotherapeutic approaches and summarises radiologic criteria to evaluate new patterns of response to immunotherapy. Furthermore, imaging features of immunotherapy-related adverse events and available predictive biomarkers of response are presented.
Topics: Diagnostic Imaging; Humans; Immunotherapy; Neoplasms; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
PubMed: 31900689
DOI: 10.1186/s41747-019-0134-1 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Several studies have confirmed the impact of 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) on the extent of resection in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). However, there are...
BACKGROUND
Several studies have confirmed the impact of 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) on the extent of resection in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). However, there are controversies on the 5-ALA fluorescence status in recurrent GBM surgery, with specific reference to pseudoprogression or radionecrosis; therefore, the safety and accuracy of surgical planning in 5-ALA-assisted procedures in the recurrent context are still unclear.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on the use of 5-ALA in newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM, consistently conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Data on fluorescence status and correlation between fluorescence and histological findings were collected. We performed a meta-analysis of proportions to estimate the pooled rates of each outcome.
RESULTS
Three online medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library) were screened, 448 articles were evaluated, and 3 papers were finally included for data analysis. Fluorescence rate was not different between newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM [p = 0.45; odds ratio (OR): 1.23; 95% CI: 0.72-2.09; I = 0%], while the rate of 5-ALA fluorescence-positive areas not associated with histological findings of GBM cells was higher in recurrent GBM (p = 0.04; OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06-0.91; I = 19%). Furthermore, there were no cases of radionecrosis in false-positive samples, while inflammation and signs of pseudoprogression were found in 81.4% of the cases.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Therefore, a robust awareness of 5-ALA potentialities and pitfalls in recurrent GBM surgery should be considered for a cognizant surgical strategy. Further clinical trials could confirm the results of the present meta-analysis.
PubMed: 35252015
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.848036 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Immunotherapy, which takes advantage of the immune system to eliminate cancer cells, has been widely studied and applied in oncology. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)... (Review)
Review
Immunotherapy, which takes advantage of the immune system to eliminate cancer cells, has been widely studied and applied in oncology. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) prevent the immune system from being turned off before cancer cells are eliminated. They have proven to be among the most promising and effective immunotherapies, with significant survival benefits and durable responses in diverse tumor types. However, an increasing number of retrospective studies have found that some patients treated with ICIs experience unusual responses, including accelerated proliferation of tumor cells and rapid progression of the disease, with poor outcomes. Such unexpected adverse events are termed hyperprogressive disease (HPD), and their occurrence suggests that ICIs are detrimental to a subset of cancer patients. HPD is common, with an incidence ranging between 4 and 29% in several cancer types. However, the mechanisms of HPD remain poorly understood, and no clinical predictive factors of HPD have been identified. In this review, we summarize current findings, including retrospective studies and case reports, and focus on several key issues including the defining characteristics, predictive biomarkers, potential mechanisms of HPD, and strategies for avoiding HPD after ICI treatment.
PubMed: 34290608
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.678409 -
The British Journal of Radiology Nov 2021Immunotherapy (PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) has attracted attention for lung cancer treatment and recasted the administration of immunotherapeutics to patients who have... (Review)
Review
Immunotherapy (PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) has attracted attention for lung cancer treatment and recasted the administration of immunotherapeutics to patients who have advanced/metastatic diseases. Whether in combination or as monotherapy, these medications have become common therapies for certain patients with lung cancer. Moreover, their usage is expected to expand widely in the future. This review aims to discuss the imaging evaluation of lung cancer response to PD-1/PD-L1 therapy with focus on new radiological criteria for immunotherapy response. Abnormal radiological responses (pseudoprogression, dissociative responses, and hyperprogression) and immune-related adverse events are also described.
Topics: Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Immunotherapy; Lung Neoplasms; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
PubMed: 34541867
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210228 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023
PubMed: 38162508
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1330225 -
Journal of Neuro-oncology Nov 2017This study aimed to assess the incidence and management of pseudoprogression after radiation therapy (RT) in patients with pediatric low-grade glioma (LGG). This...
This study aimed to assess the incidence and management of pseudoprogression after radiation therapy (RT) in patients with pediatric low-grade glioma (LGG). This retrospective review included patients aged 21 years or younger with intracranial LGG treated with curative-intent RT. Pseudoprogression was defined as an increase in tumor size by ≥10% in at least two dimensions between two and three consecutive MR imaging studies. Overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were measured from the first day of RT. EFS was defined as survival without true progression or secondary high-grade glioma. Sixty-two of 221 patients developed pseudoprogression, with a 10-year cumulative incidence of 29.0% (95% CI 23.0-35.2). Median time to pseudoprogression was 6.1 months after RT. Symptomatic pseudoprogression was managed with subtotal resection, shunt/Ommaya reservoir placement, or corticosteroids in 11 (18%), 7 (11%), and 2 patients (3%), respectively. The remaining tumors were observed (68%). Patients with pilocytic astrocytoma (PA) had 5.4-fold greater odds of developing pseudoprogression relative to tumors of other histology (odds ratio 95% CI 2.5-11.4, P < 0.0001). Among patients with PA (n = 127), the 10-year cumulative incidence of pseudoprogression was 42.9%. In this group, pseudoprogression was associated with improved 10-year EFS (84.5% vs. 58.5%, P = 0.008) and OS (98.0% vs. 91.2%, P = 0.03). Pseudoprogression after irradiation was common, especially in patients with pilocytic astrocytoma, and was associated with improved survival. Knowledge of the incidence and temporal course of pseudoprogression may help avoid unnecessary salvage therapy.
Topics: Adolescent; Brain; Brain Neoplasms; Child; Child, Preschool; Disease Management; Disease Progression; Female; Glioma; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Neoplasm Grading; Retrospective Studies; Survival Analysis; Time Factors; Tumor Burden; Young Adult
PubMed: 28752498
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-017-2583-9 -
Cancer Biology & Medicine Nov 2019As immunotherapy has gained increasing interest as a new foundation for cancer therapy, some atypical response patterns, such as pseudoprogression and hyperprogression,...
As immunotherapy has gained increasing interest as a new foundation for cancer therapy, some atypical response patterns, such as pseudoprogression and hyperprogression, have garnered the attention of physicians. Pseudoprogression is a phenomenon in which an initial increase in tumor size is observed or new lesions appear, followed by a decrease in tumor burden; this phenomenon can benefit patients receiving immunotherapy but often leads to premature discontinuation of treatment owing to the false judgment of progression. Accurately recognizing pseudoprogression is also a challenge for physicians. Because of the extensive attention on pseudoprogression, significant progress has been made. Some new criteria for immunotherapy, such as irRC, iRECIST and imRECIST, were proposed to accurately evaluate the response to immunotherapy. Many new detection indexes, such as ctDNA and IL-8, have also been used to identify pseudoprogression. In this review, the definition, evaluation criteria, mechanism, monitoring, management and prognosis of pseudoprogression are summarized, and diagnostic and treatment processes for patients with progression but with a suspicion of pseudoprogression are proposed; these processes could be helpful for physicians in clinical practice and enhances the understanding of pseudoprogression.
PubMed: 31908886
DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2019.0144 -
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Jul 2023The interpretation of new enhancing lesions after radiotherapy for diffuse glioma remains a clinical challenge. We sought to characterize and classify new contrast... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The interpretation of new enhancing lesions after radiotherapy for diffuse glioma remains a clinical challenge. We sought to characterize and classify new contrast enhancing lesions in a historical multicenter cohort of patients with IDH mutated grade 2 diffuse glioma treated with photon therapy.
METHODS
We reviewed all follow-up MRI's of all patients treated with radiotherapy for histologically confirmed, IDH mutated diffuse grade 2 glioma between 1-1-2007 and 31-12-2018 in two tertiary referral centers. Disease progression (PD) was defined in accordance with the RANO criteria for progressive disease in low grade glioma. Pseudoprogression (psPD) was defined as any transient contrast-enhancing lesion between the end of radiotherapy and PD, or any new contrast-enhancing lesion that remained stable over a period of 12 months in patients who did not exhibit PD.
RESULTS
A total of 860 MRI's of 106 patients were reviewed. psPD was identified in 24 patients (23%) on 76 MRI's. The cumulative incidence of psPD was 13% at 1 year, 22% at 5 years, and 28% at 10 years. The mean of the observed maximal volume of psPD was 2.4 cc. The median Dmin in psPD lesions was 50.1 Gy. The presence of an 1p/19q codeletion was associated with an increased risk of psPD (subhazard ratio 2.34, p = 0.048). psPD was asymptomatic in 83% of patients.
CONCLUSION
The cumulative incidence of psPD in grade 2 diffuse glioma increases over time. Consensus regarding event definition and statistical analysis is needed for comparisons between series investigating psPD.
Topics: Humans; Brain Neoplasms; Glioma; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Disease Progression; Mutation; Isocitrate Dehydrogenase; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37084885
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109674 -
Biomedicines Dec 2022Glioblastoma (GBM) is a malignant brain tumor exhibiting rapid and infiltrative growth, with less than 10% of patients surviving over 5 years, despite aggressive and... (Review)
Review
Glioblastoma (GBM) is a malignant brain tumor exhibiting rapid and infiltrative growth, with less than 10% of patients surviving over 5 years, despite aggressive and multimodal treatments. The poor prognosis and the lack of effective pharmacological treatments are imputable to a remarkable histological and molecular heterogeneity of GBM, which has led, to date, to the failure of precision oncology and targeted therapies. Identification of molecular biomarkers is a paradigm for comprehensive and tailored treatments; nevertheless, biopsy sampling has proved to be invasive and limited. Radiogenomics is an emerging translational field of research aiming to study the correlation between radiographic signature and underlying gene expression. Although a research field still under development, not yet incorporated into routine clinical practice, it promises to be a useful non-invasive tool for future personalized/adaptive neuro-oncology. This review provides an up-to-date summary of the recent advancements in the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiogenomics for the assessment of molecular markers of interest in GBM regarding prognosis and response to treatments, for monitoring recurrence, also providing insights into the potential efficacy of such an approach for survival prognostication. Despite a high sensitivity and specificity in almost all studies, accuracy, reproducibility and clinical value of radiomic features are the Achilles heel of this newborn tool. Looking into the future, investigators' efforts should be directed towards standardization and a disciplined approach to data collection, algorithms, and statistical analysis.
PubMed: 36551961
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10123205