Cargando…

Defining Treatment‐Related Adverse Effects in Patients with Glioma: Distinctive Features of Pseudoprogression and Treatment‐Induced Necrosis

BACKGROUND: Pseudoprogression (PP) and treatment‐induced brain tissue necrosis (TN) are challenging cancer treatment–related effects. Both phenomena remain insufficiently defined; differentiation from recurrent disease frequently necessitates tissue biopsy. We here characterize distinctive features...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Winter, Sebastian F., Vaios, Eugene J., Muzikansky, Alona, Martinez‐Lage, Maria, Bussière, Marc R., Shih, Helen A., Loeffler, Jay, Karschnia, Philipp, Loebel, Franziska, Vajkoczy, Peter, Dietrich, Jorg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7418360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32488924
http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0085
_version_ 1783569675393695744
author Winter, Sebastian F.
Vaios, Eugene J.
Muzikansky, Alona
Martinez‐Lage, Maria
Bussière, Marc R.
Shih, Helen A.
Loeffler, Jay
Karschnia, Philipp
Loebel, Franziska
Vajkoczy, Peter
Dietrich, Jorg
author_facet Winter, Sebastian F.
Vaios, Eugene J.
Muzikansky, Alona
Martinez‐Lage, Maria
Bussière, Marc R.
Shih, Helen A.
Loeffler, Jay
Karschnia, Philipp
Loebel, Franziska
Vajkoczy, Peter
Dietrich, Jorg
author_sort Winter, Sebastian F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Pseudoprogression (PP) and treatment‐induced brain tissue necrosis (TN) are challenging cancer treatment–related effects. Both phenomena remain insufficiently defined; differentiation from recurrent disease frequently necessitates tissue biopsy. We here characterize distinctive features of PP and TN to facilitate noninvasive diagnosis and clinical management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with glioma and confirmed PP (defined as appearance <5 months after radiotherapy [RT] completion) or TN (>5 months after RT) were retrospectively compared using clinical, radiographic, and histopathological data. Each imaging event/lesion (region of interest [ROI]) diagnosed as PP or TN was longitudinally evaluated by serial imaging. RESULTS: We identified 64 cases of mostly (80%) biopsy‐confirmed PP (n = 27) and TN (n = 37), comprising 137 ROIs in total. Median time of onset for PP and TN was 1 and 11 months after RT, respectively. Clinically, PP occurred more frequently during active antineoplastic treatment, necessitated more steroid‐based interventions, and was associated with glioblastoma (81 vs. 40%), fewer IDH1 mutations, and shorter median overall survival. Radiographically, TN lesions often initially manifested periventricularly (n = 22/37; 60%), were more numerous (median, 2 vs. 1 ROIs), and contained fewer malignant elements upon biopsy. By contrast, PP predominantly developed around the tumor resection cavity as a non‐nodular, ring‐like enhancing structure. Both PP and TN lesions almost exclusively developed in the main prior radiation field. Presence of either condition appeared to be associated with above‐average overall survival. CONCLUSION: PP and TN occur in clinically distinct patient populations and exhibit differences in spatial radiographic pattern. Increased familiarity with both conditions and their unique features will improve patient management and may avoid unnecessary surgical procedures. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pseudoprogression (PP) and treatment‐induced brain tissue necrosis (TN) are challenging treatment‐related effects mimicking tumor progression in patients with brain cancer. Affected patients frequently require surgery to guide management. PP and TN remain arbitrarily defined and insufficiently characterized. Lack of clear diagnostic criteria compromises treatment and may adversely affect outcome interpretation in clinical trials. The present findings in a cohort of patients with glioma with PP/TN suggest that both phenomena exhibit unique clinical and imaging characteristics, manifest in different patient populations, and should be classified as distinct clinical conditions. Increased familiarity with PP and TN key features may guide clinicians toward timely noninvasive diagnosis, circumvent potentially unnecessary surgical procedures, and improve response assessment in neuro‐oncology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7418360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74183602020-08-12 Defining Treatment‐Related Adverse Effects in Patients with Glioma: Distinctive Features of Pseudoprogression and Treatment‐Induced Necrosis Winter, Sebastian F. Vaios, Eugene J. Muzikansky, Alona Martinez‐Lage, Maria Bussière, Marc R. Shih, Helen A. Loeffler, Jay Karschnia, Philipp Loebel, Franziska Vajkoczy, Peter Dietrich, Jorg Oncologist Neuro‐Oncology BACKGROUND: Pseudoprogression (PP) and treatment‐induced brain tissue necrosis (TN) are challenging cancer treatment–related effects. Both phenomena remain insufficiently defined; differentiation from recurrent disease frequently necessitates tissue biopsy. We here characterize distinctive features of PP and TN to facilitate noninvasive diagnosis and clinical management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with glioma and confirmed PP (defined as appearance <5 months after radiotherapy [RT] completion) or TN (>5 months after RT) were retrospectively compared using clinical, radiographic, and histopathological data. Each imaging event/lesion (region of interest [ROI]) diagnosed as PP or TN was longitudinally evaluated by serial imaging. RESULTS: We identified 64 cases of mostly (80%) biopsy‐confirmed PP (n = 27) and TN (n = 37), comprising 137 ROIs in total. Median time of onset for PP and TN was 1 and 11 months after RT, respectively. Clinically, PP occurred more frequently during active antineoplastic treatment, necessitated more steroid‐based interventions, and was associated with glioblastoma (81 vs. 40%), fewer IDH1 mutations, and shorter median overall survival. Radiographically, TN lesions often initially manifested periventricularly (n = 22/37; 60%), were more numerous (median, 2 vs. 1 ROIs), and contained fewer malignant elements upon biopsy. By contrast, PP predominantly developed around the tumor resection cavity as a non‐nodular, ring‐like enhancing structure. Both PP and TN lesions almost exclusively developed in the main prior radiation field. Presence of either condition appeared to be associated with above‐average overall survival. CONCLUSION: PP and TN occur in clinically distinct patient populations and exhibit differences in spatial radiographic pattern. Increased familiarity with both conditions and their unique features will improve patient management and may avoid unnecessary surgical procedures. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pseudoprogression (PP) and treatment‐induced brain tissue necrosis (TN) are challenging treatment‐related effects mimicking tumor progression in patients with brain cancer. Affected patients frequently require surgery to guide management. PP and TN remain arbitrarily defined and insufficiently characterized. Lack of clear diagnostic criteria compromises treatment and may adversely affect outcome interpretation in clinical trials. The present findings in a cohort of patients with glioma with PP/TN suggest that both phenomena exhibit unique clinical and imaging characteristics, manifest in different patient populations, and should be classified as distinct clinical conditions. Increased familiarity with PP and TN key features may guide clinicians toward timely noninvasive diagnosis, circumvent potentially unnecessary surgical procedures, and improve response assessment in neuro‐oncology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020-06-18 2020-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7418360/ /pubmed/32488924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0085 Text en © 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Neuro‐Oncology
Winter, Sebastian F.
Vaios, Eugene J.
Muzikansky, Alona
Martinez‐Lage, Maria
Bussière, Marc R.
Shih, Helen A.
Loeffler, Jay
Karschnia, Philipp
Loebel, Franziska
Vajkoczy, Peter
Dietrich, Jorg
Defining Treatment‐Related Adverse Effects in Patients with Glioma: Distinctive Features of Pseudoprogression and Treatment‐Induced Necrosis
title Defining Treatment‐Related Adverse Effects in Patients with Glioma: Distinctive Features of Pseudoprogression and Treatment‐Induced Necrosis
title_full Defining Treatment‐Related Adverse Effects in Patients with Glioma: Distinctive Features of Pseudoprogression and Treatment‐Induced Necrosis
title_fullStr Defining Treatment‐Related Adverse Effects in Patients with Glioma: Distinctive Features of Pseudoprogression and Treatment‐Induced Necrosis
title_full_unstemmed Defining Treatment‐Related Adverse Effects in Patients with Glioma: Distinctive Features of Pseudoprogression and Treatment‐Induced Necrosis
title_short Defining Treatment‐Related Adverse Effects in Patients with Glioma: Distinctive Features of Pseudoprogression and Treatment‐Induced Necrosis
title_sort defining treatment‐related adverse effects in patients with glioma: distinctive features of pseudoprogression and treatment‐induced necrosis
topic Neuro‐Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7418360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32488924
http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0085
work_keys_str_mv AT wintersebastianf definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT vaioseugenej definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT muzikanskyalona definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT martinezlagemaria definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT bussieremarcr definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT shihhelena definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT loefflerjay definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT karschniaphilipp definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT loebelfranziska definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT vajkoczypeter definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis
AT dietrichjorg definingtreatmentrelatedadverseeffectsinpatientswithgliomadistinctivefeaturesofpseudoprogressionandtreatmentinducednecrosis