Abstract:Abstract BACKGROUND Post-gadolinium MRI is considered the mainstay of radiological monitoring of treatment effects in patients with a glioblastoma. However, the radiotherapy(RT)-induced abnormality, pseudoprogression, is difficult to distinguish from real tumor growth. Perfusion MRI (pMRI), including Arterial Spin Labeling (ASL) and Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast (DSC), may help in this differentiation. Evaluation of RT effects is usually discussed during multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM), after which a decision regarding (dis)continuation of anti-tumor treatment is made. It is currently unknown whether pMRI impacts such treatment decisions. This study evaluated how accurate pMRI and the MDTM are in distinguishing tumor progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS Population and outcome: Glioblastoma patients who received postoperative RT were retrospectively included from 2015 to 2020. ASL, DSC, FLAIR and post-gadolinium 3D-T1 at 3 months post-RT were visually scored for probability of radiological tumor progression. These radiological scores, as well as the outcome of MDTM, were compared to the final outcome (i.e. tumor progression or pseudoprogression) set at 9 months after RT initiation. Statistical analysis: Diagnostic accuracy of pMRI, conventional MRI and MDTM was assessed by 2x2 tables, sensitivity and specificity (including AUC values). In case the MDTM was inconclusive, subsequent analysis was used to determine whether pMRI has additional value. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to assess which clinical parameters (age, surgery type, IDH mutation status, MGMT methylation status, KPS score, chemotherapy and pMRI evaluation) were associated with the outcome of the MDTM assessment. RESULTS Sixty-five patients with a glioblastoma met the inclusion criteria (40 male, mean age 60+/-13 years, median KPS of 90). For all METHODS , the sensitivity for detecting true disease progression was poor to moderate (32-62%). Although sensitivity was higher when adding pMRI to conventional imaging (56% versus 32%), specificity was lower (80% versus 93%). AUC values were comparable (range 0.63-0.74), but highest for MDTM evaluation (0.74). For the 26% of patients where MDTM was inconclusive, pMRI shows increased sensitivity compared to conventional MRI in detecting tumor progression (respectively 36% versus 0%). The multivariable regression analysis showed significant associations for KPS score (OR = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.91)) and radiological assessment based on pMRI with MDTM outcome (OR = 0.09 (95% CI: 0.02-0.52)). CONCLUSION This study shows that perfusion MRI has added value for detection of tumor progression within the MDTM assessment in clinical decision-making for glioblastomas, especially when the MDTM outcome is uncertain. For this decision, the role of perfusion MRI and the KPS score are most important.

Dynamic susceptibility contrast‐enhanced perfusion magnetic resonance imaging parameters for predicting MGMT promoter methylation and prognostic value in newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma

MGMT promoter methylation status shows no effect on [18F]FET uptake and CBF in gliomas: a stereotactic image-based histological validation study

Radiomics signature: A potential biomarker for the prediction of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma

P11.07.A PERFUSION-MRI BASED DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN EARLY TUMOR PROGRESSION AND PSEUDOPROGRESSION IN GLIOBLASTOMA AND ITS USE IN CLINICAL PRACTICE

Association of dynamic susceptibility magnetic resonance imaging at initial tumor diagnosis with the prognosis of different molecular glioma subtypes

Diffuse glioma molecular profiling with arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI: A comparative study

Prognostic Prediction Based on Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI and Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced MRI Parameters from Non-Enhancing, T2-High-Signal-Intensity Lesions in Patients with Glioblastoma

Discriminating MGMT Promoter Methylation Status in Patients with Glioblastoma Employing Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted MRI Metrics

Prediction of O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status in IDH-wildtype glioblastoma using MRI histogram analysis

Preoperative prediction of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma based on multiregional and multi-sequence MRI radiomics analysis

Application of MGMT Promoter Methylation of Cerebrospinal Fluid in Diagnosis of Glioma

Prognostic value of preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion parameters for high-grade glioma patients

18F-FDG-PET-based Radiomics signature predicts MGMT promoter methylation status in primary diffuse glioma

The Significance of MGMT Promoter Methylation Status in Diffuse Glioma

Predicting MGMT Promoter Methylation in Diffuse Gliomas Using Deep Learning with Radiomics

Non-Invasive MGMT Status Prediction in GBM Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Images (MRI) Radiomics Features: Univariate and Multivariate Machine Learning Radiogenomics Analysis

Assessing the predictability of IDH mutation and MGMT methylation status in glioma patients using relaxation-compensated multipool CEST MRI at 7.0 T

PATH-01. MGMT METHYLATION CUTOFF VALUE IN QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS RELATED TO PROGNOSIS OF NEWLY DIAGNOSED GLIOBLASTOMA

MGMT promoter methylation determined by HRM in comparison to MSP and pyrosequencing for predicting high-grade glioma response

MGMT Promoter Methylation Prediction Based on Multiparametric MRI Via Vision Graph Neural Network.

Comprehensive Analysis of MGMT Promoter Methylation: Correlation with MGMT Expression and Clinical Response in GBM.