Radyoterapi Sonrası Beyinde Radyolojik Değişiklikler Tümör Psödoprogresyonu ve Radyasyon Nekrozu
Özet
Bu çalışma, beyin tümörlerinin tedavisinde kullanılan radyoterapinin (RT) ardından beyinde meydana gelen radyolojik değişiklikleri, özellikle tümör psödoprogresyonu ve radyasyon nekrozunu incelemektedir. Gelişen tedavi teknikleriyle hastaların sağkalım süresi uzamakta, bu da radyasyonun geç dönem etkileriyle daha sık karşılaşılmasına yol açmaktadır. RT sonrası ortaya çıkan akut, erken-gecikmiş ve geç-gecikmiş hasar evreleri farklı mekanizmalarla gelişim gösterir. Bu süreçte, tedavi sonrası meydana gelen değişimlerin gerçek tümör progresyonundan (rekürrens) ayırt edilmesi, doğru tedavi planlaması için kritik bir öneme sahiptir. Tanı aşamasında en yaygın kullanılan yöntem konvansiyonel Manyetik Rezonans Görüntüleme (MRG) olmakla birlikte, bu teknik tek başına yetersiz kalabilmektedir. Bu nedenle, difüzyon ağırlıklı görüntüleme (DAG), perfüzyon MRG ve manyetik rezonans spektroskopi (MRS) gibi ileri MR sekanslarının yanı sıra PET ve SPECT gibi nükleer tıp yöntemlerinden yararlanılmaktadır. Psödoprogresyon genellikle tedaviden sonraki 3-6 ay içinde gelişip spontan gerileme gösterirken; radyasyon nekrozu 6-12 ay sonra ortaya çıkan, ilerleyici ve büyük oranda geri dönüşümsüz bir tablodur. Kesin tanı için altın standart biyopsi olsa da ileri görüntüleme bulgularının multidisipliner analizi tedavinin yönetiminde hayati bir rol oynamaktadır.
This study examines the radiological changes occurring in the brain following radiotherapy (RT) used in the treatment of brain tumors, focusing particularly on tumor pseudoprogression and radiation necrosis. With advancements in treatment techniques, patient survival rates have prolonged, leading to a higher incidence of late effects of radiation. The acute, early-delayed, and late-delayed damage stages after RT develop through distinct mechanisms. In this process, differentiating treatment-induced changes from true tumor progression (recurrence) is critically important for accurate treatment planning. Although conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the most common method used during diagnosis, this technique can be insufficient on its own. Therefore, advanced MR sequences such as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), perfusion MRI, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), alongside nuclear medicine modalities like PET and SPECT, are utilized. Pseudoprogression typically develops 3-6 months post-treatment and shows spontaneous regression, whereas radiation necrosis occurs 6-12 months later as a progressive and largely irreversible condition. Although biopsy remains the gold standard for definitive diagnosis, the multidisciplinary analysis of advanced imaging findings plays a vital role in clinical management.
Referanslar
Verma N, Cowperthwaite MC, Burnett MG, et al. Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: A review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15(5):515–34.
Kotecha R, Gondi V, Ahluwalia MS, et al. Recent advances in managing brain metastasis. F1000Res. 2018;7:F1000 Faculty Rev-1772.
Wick W, Osswald M, Wick A, et al. Treatment of glioblastoma in adults. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2018;11:1–7.
Shah R, Vattoth S, Jacob R, et al. Radiation necrosis in the brain: Imaging features and differentiation from tumor recurrence. Radiographics. 2012;32(5):1343–59.
Osborn AG, Hedlung GL, Salzman KL. (2017). Osborn’s Brain. (Second Edit). Elseiver.
Sheline GE, Wara WM, Smith V. Therapeutic irradiation and brain injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1980;6(9):1215–28.
Fink J, Born D, Chamberlain MC. Radiation necrosis: Relevance with respect to treatment of primary and secondary brain tumors. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2012;12(3):276–85.
Greene-Schloesser D, Robbins ME, Peiffer AM, et al. Radiation-induced brain injury: A review. Front Oncol. 2012;2:73.
Sundgren PC, Cao Y. Brain irradiation: effects on normal brain parenchyma and radiation injury. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2009;19(4):657-668.
Lumniczky K, Szatmári T, Sáfrány G. Ionizing Radiation-Induced Immune and Inflammatory Reactions in the Brain. Front Immunol. 2017;8:517.
Kumar AJ, Leeds NE, Fuller GN, et al. Malignant gliomas: MR imaging spectrum of radiation therapy-and chemotherapy-induced necrosis of the brain after treatment. Radiology. 2000;217(2):377–84.
Strauss SB, Meng A, Ebani EJ, et al. Imaging Glioblastoma Posttreatment: Progression, Pseudoprogression, Pseudoresponse, Radiation Necrosis. Radiol Clin North Am [Internet]. 2019;57(6):1199–216.
Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Xu J, et al. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2009-2013. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(suppl_5):v1-v75.
Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: Response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1963–72.
Wen PY, Chang SM, Van den Bent MJ,et al. Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Clinical Trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(21):2439-2449.
Noh T, Walbert T. Brain metastasis: clinical manifestations, symptom management, and palliative care. Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;149:75-88.
Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, et al. Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: Proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(6):e270–8.
Topkan E, Topuk S, Oymak E, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma multiforme after concurrent radiotherapy and temozolomide. Am J Clin Oncol Cancer Clin Trials. 2012;35(3):284–9.
Thust SC, van den Bent MJ, Smits M. Pseudoprogression of brain tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;48(3):571–89.
Radbruch A, Fladt J, Kickingereder P, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: Clinical relevance despite low incidence. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(1):151–9.
Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, et al. MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(13):2192–7.
Zikou A, Sioka C, Alexiou GA, et al. Radiation Necrosis, Pseudoprogression, Pseudoresponse, and Tumor Recurrence: Imaging Challenges for the Evaluation of Treated Gliomas. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018;2018:6828396.
Ali FS, Arevalo O, Zorofchian S, et al. Cerebral Radiation Necrosis: Incidence, Pathogenesis, Diagnostic Challenges, and Future Opportunities. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019;21(8).
de Wit MC, de Bruin HG, Eijkenboom W, et al. Immediate post-radiotherapy changes in malignant glioma can mimic tumor progression. Neurology. 2004;63(3):535-537.
Yoo RE, Choi SH, Kim TM, et al. Independent Poor Prognostic Factors for True Progression after Radiation Therapy and Concomitant Temozolomide in Patients with Glioblastoma: Subependymal Enhancement and Low ADC Value. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(10):1846-1852.
Mullins ME, Barest GD, Schaefer PW, et al. Radiation necrosis versus glioma recurrence: conventional MR imaging clues to diagnosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(8):1967-1972.
Kleinberg L, Yoon G, Weingart JD, et al. Imaging after GliaSite brachytherapy: prognostic MRI indicators of disease control and recurrence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75(5):1385-1391.
Young RJ, Gupta A, Shah AD, et al. Potential utility of conventional MRI signs in diagnosing pseudoprogression in glioblastoma. Neurology. 2011;76(22):1918-1924.
Prager AJ, Martinez N, Beal K, et al. Diffusion and perfusion MRI to differentiate treatment-related changes including pseudoprogression from recurrent tumors in high-grade gliomas with histopathologic evidence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(5):877-885.
Cha J, Kim ST, Kim HJ, et al. Differentiation of tumor progression from pseudoprogression in patients with posttreatment glioblastoma using multiparametric histogram analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(7):1309-1317.
Patel P, Baradaran H, Delgado D, et al. MR perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of high-grade gliomas after treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(1):118-127.
Gaddikeri S, Gaddikeri RS, Tailor T, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in head and neck cancer: Techniques and clinical applications. Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(4):588–95.
Sundgren PC, Cao Y. Brain irradiation: effects on normal brain parenchyma and radiation injury. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2009;19(4):657-668.
Yun TJ, Park CK, Kim TM, et al. Glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy: differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression with quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;274(3):830-840.
Lee WJ, Choi SH, Park CK, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression following concomitant radiotherapy with temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(11):1353-1361.
Reimer C, Deike K, Graf M, et al. Differentiation of pseudoprogression and real progression in glioblastoma using ADC parametric response maps. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0174620.
Bobek-Billewicz B, Stasik-Pres G, Majchrzak H, et al. Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using perfusion, diffusion-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopy. Folia Neuropathol. 2010;48(2):81-92.
Bulik M, Kazda T, Slampa P, et al. The Diagnostic Ability of Follow-Up Imaging Biomarkers after Treatment of Glioblastoma in the Temozolomide Era: Implications from Proton MR Spectroscopy and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Mapping. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:641023.
Hein PA, Eskey CJ, Dunn JF, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the follow-up of treated high-grade gliomas: tumor recurrence versus radiation injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(2):201-209.
Song YS, Choi SH, Park CK, et al. True progression versus pseudoprogression in the treatment of glioblastomas: a comparison study of normalized cerebral blood volume and apparent diffusion coefficient by histogram analysis. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(4):662-672.
Moffat BA, Chenevert TL, Lawrence TS, et al. Functional diffusion map: a noninvasive MRI biomarker for early stratification of clinical brain tumor response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(15):5524-5529.
Agarwal A, Kumar S, Narang J, et al. Morphologic MRI features, diffusion tensor imaging and radiation dosimetric analysis to differentiate pseudo-progression from early tumor progression. J Neurooncol. 2013;112(3):413-420.
Wang S, Martinez-Lage M, Sakai Y, et al. Differentiating Tumor Progression from Pseudoprogression in Patients with Glioblastomas Using Diffusion Tensor Imaging and Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(1):28-36.
Sawlani V, Taylor R, Rowley K, et al. Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy for Differentiating Pseudo-Progression from True Progression in GBM on Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy. Neuroradiol J. 2012;25(5):575-586.
Weybright P, Sundgren PC, Maly P, et al. Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using MR spectroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(6):1471–6.
Gocmen R, Karli Oguz K. Intrakraniyal Tumörlerin Tedaviye Yanitinin Radyolojik Olarak Degerlendirilmesi. Türk Radyoloji Semin. 2016;4(1):149–60.
van Dijken BRJ, van Laar PJ, Holtman GA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with high-grade glioma, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(10):4129-4144.
Rizzo S, Botta F, Raimondi S, et al. Radiomics: the facts and the challenges of image analysis. Eur Radiol Exp. 2018;2(1):36.
Chen X, Wei X, Zhang Z, et al. Differentiation of true-progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with radiation therapy and concomitant temozolomide by GLCM texture analysis of conventional MRI. Clin Imaging. 2015;39(5):775-780.
Lee J, Wang N, Turk S, et al. Discriminating pseudoprogression and true progression in diffuse infiltrating glioma using multi-parametric MRI data through deep learning. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):20331.
Lohmann P, Elahmadawy MA, Gutsche R, et al. FET PET Radiomics for Differentiating Pseudoprogression from Early Tumor Progression in Glioma Patients Post-Chemoradiation. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(12):3835.
Kebir S, Khurshid Z, Gaertner FC, et al. Unsupervised consensus cluster analysis of [18F]-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine positron emission tomography identified textural features for the diagnosis of pseudoprogression in high-grade glioma. Oncotarget. 2017;8(5):8294-8304.
Rahmathulla G, Marko NF, Weil RJ. Cerebral radiation necrosis: A review of the pathobiology, diagnosis and management considerations. J Clin Neurosci [Internet]. 2013;20(4):485–502.
Ruben JD, Dally M, Bailey M, et al. Cerebral radiation necrosis: Incidence, outcomes, and risk factors with emphasis on radiation parameters and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(2):499–508.
Flickinger JC, Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, et al. Development of a model to predict permanent symptomatic postradiosurgery injury for arteriovenous malformation patients. Arteriovenous Malformation Radiosurgery Study Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46(5):1143-1148.
Miller JA, Bennett EE, Xiao R, et al. Association Between Radiation Necrosis and Tumor Biology After Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastasis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys [Internet]. 2016;96(5):1060–9.
Tofilon PJ, Fike JR. The radioresponse of the central nervous system: A dynamic process. Radiat Res. 2000;153(4):357–70.
Tsuruda JS, Kortman KE, Bradley WG, Wheeler DC, Van Dalsem W, Bradley TP. Radiation effects on cerebral white matter: MR evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;149(1):165-171.
Dequesada IM, Quisling RG, Yachnis A, et al. Can standard magnetic resonance imaging reliably distinguish recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis after radiosurgery for brain metastases? A radiographic-pathological study. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(5):898-904.
Kano H, Kondziolka D, Lobato-Polo J, et al. T1/T2 matching to differentiate tumor growth from radiation effects after stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(3):486-492.
Barajas RF, Chang JS, Sneed PK, et al. Distinguishing recurrent intra-axial metastatic tumor from radiation necrosis following gamma knife radiosurgery using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(2):367-372.
Nael K, Bauer AH, Hormigo A, et al. Multiparametric MRI for Differentiation of Radiation Necrosis From Recurrent Tumor in Patients With Treated Glioblastoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(1):18-23.
Zhang H, Ma L, Shu C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion MRI with quantitative ADC measurements in differentiating glioma recurrence from radiation necrosis. J Neurol Sci. 2015;351(1-2):65-71.
Alcaide-Leon P, Cluceru J, Lupo JM, et al. Centrally Reduced Diffusion Sign for Differentiation between Treatment-Related Lesions and Glioma Progression: A Validation Study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020;41(11):2049-2054.
Kashimura H, Inoue T, Beppu T, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging for differentiation of recurrent brain tumor and radiation necrosis after radiotherapy--three case reports. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2007;109(1):106-110.
Xu JL, Li YL, Lian JM, et al. Distinction between postoperative recurrent glioma and radiation injury using MR diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroradiology. 2010;52(12):1193-1199.
Sundgren PC, Fan X, Weybright P, et al. Differentiation of recurrent brain tumor versus radiation injury using diffusion tensor imaging in patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions. Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(9):1131-1142.
Zeng QS, Li CF, Liu H, et al. Distinction between recurrent glioma and radiation injury using magnetic resonance spectroscopy in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(1):151-158.
Smith EA, Carlos RC, Junck LR, et al. Developing a clinical decision model: MR spectroscopy to differentiate between recurrent tumor and radiation change in patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):W45-W52.
Schlemmer HP, Bachert P, Herfarth KK, et al. Proton MR spectroscopic evaluation of suspicious brain lesions after stereotactic radiotherapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(7):1316-1324.
Kim EE, Chung SK, Haynie TP, et al. Differentiation of residual or recurrent tumors from post-treatment changes with F-18 FDG PET. Radiographics. 1992;12(2):269-279.
Valk PE, Budinger TF, Levin VA, et al. PET of malignant cerebral tumors after interstitial brachytherapy. Demonstration of metabolic activity and correlation with clinical outcome. J Neurosurg. 1988;69(6):830-838.
Di Chiro G, Oldfield E, Wright DC, et al. Cerebral necrosis after radiotherapy and/or intraarterial chemotherapy for brain tumors: PET and neuropathologic studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150(1):189-197.
Terakawa Y, Tsuyuguchi N, Iwai Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-methionine PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(5):694-699.
Guo J, Higashi K, Ueda Y, et al. Microvessel density: correlation with 18F-FDG uptake and prognostic impact in lung adenocarcinomas. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(3):419-425.
Yomo S, Oguchi K. Prospective study of 11C-methionine PET for distinguishing between recurrent brain metastases and radiation necrosis: limitations of diagnostic accuracy and long-term results of salvage treatment. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):713.
Tsuyuguchi N, Sunada I, Iwai Y, et al. Methionine positron emission tomography of recurrent metastatic brain tumor and radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery: is a differential diagnosis possible?. J Neurosurg. 2003;98(5):1056-1064.
Chen W, Cloughesy T, Kamdar N, et al. Imaging proliferation in brain tumors with 18F-FLT PET: comparison with 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):945-952.
Zhang H, Ma L, Wu C,et al. Performance of SPECT in the differential diagnosis of glioma recurrence from radiation necrosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(2):229-237.
