AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2019
Evaluation of the Implementation of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Criteria in the HERBY Trial of Pediatric Patients with Newly Diagnosed High-Grade Gliomas.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rodriguez D, Chambers T, Warmuth-Metz M, Aliaga E Sanchez, Warren D, Calmon R, Hargrave D, Garcia J, Vassal G, Grill J, Zahlmann G, Morgan P S, Jaspan T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: HERBY was a Phase II multicenter trial setup to establish the efficacy and safety of adding bevacizumab to radiation therapy and temozolomide in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed non-brain stem high-grade gliomas. This study evaluates the implementation of the radiologic aspects of HERBY.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed multimodal imaging compliance rates and scan quality for participating sites, adjudication rates and reading times for the central review process, the influence of different Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria in the final response, the incidence of pseudoprogression, and the benefit of incorporating multimodal imaging into the decision process.
RESULTS: Multimodal imaging compliance rates were the following: diffusion, 82%; perfusion, 60%; and spectroscopy, 48%. Neuroradiologists' responses differed for 50% of scans, requiring adjudication, with a total average reading time per patient of approximately 3 hours. Pseudoprogression occurred in 10/116 (9%) cases, 8 in the radiation therapy/temozolomide arm and 2 in the bevacizumab arm (P < .01). Increased target enhancing lesion diameter was a reason for progression in 8/86 cases (9.3%) but never the only radiologic or clinical reason. Event-free survival was predicted earlier in 5/86 (5.8%) patients by multimodal imaging (diffusion, n = 4; perfusion, n = 1).
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of multimodal imaging to the response criteria modified the assessment in a small number of cases, determining progression earlier than structural imaging alone. Increased target lesion diameter, accounting for a large proportion of reading time, was never the only reason to designate disease progression.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed multimodal imaging compliance rates and scan quality for participating sites, adjudication rates and reading times for the central review process, the influence of different Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria in the final response, the incidence of pseudoprogression, and the benefit of incorporating multimodal imaging into the decision process.
RESULTS: Multimodal imaging compliance rates were the following: diffusion, 82%; perfusion, 60%; and spectroscopy, 48%. Neuroradiologists' responses differed for 50% of scans, requiring adjudication, with a total average reading time per patient of approximately 3 hours. Pseudoprogression occurred in 10/116 (9%) cases, 8 in the radiation therapy/temozolomide arm and 2 in the bevacizumab arm (P < .01). Increased target enhancing lesion diameter was a reason for progression in 8/86 cases (9.3%) but never the only radiologic or clinical reason. Event-free survival was predicted earlier in 5/86 (5.8%) patients by multimodal imaging (diffusion, n = 4; perfusion, n = 1).
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of multimodal imaging to the response criteria modified the assessment in a small number of cases, determining progression earlier than structural imaging alone. Increased target lesion diameter, accounting for a large proportion of reading time, was never the only reason to designate disease progression.