Smits, Marion

Abstract Brain tumor diagnostics have significantly evolved with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) and advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. In addition to anatomical MRI, these modalities may provide valuable information for several clinical applications such as differential diagnosis, delineation of tumor extent, prognostication, differentiation between tumor relapse and treatment-related changes, and the evaluation of response to anticancer therapy. In particular, joint recommendations of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Group, the European Association of Neuro-oncology, and major European and American Nuclear Medicine societies highlighted that the additional clinical value of radiolabeled amino acids compared to anatomical MRI alone is outstanding and that its widespread clinical use should be supported. For advanced MRI and its steadily increasing use in clinical practice, the Standardization Subcommittee of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition provided more recently an updated acquisition protocol for the widely used dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI. Besides amino acid PET and perfusion MRI, other PET tracers and advanced MRI techniques (e.g. MR spectroscopy) are of considerable clinical interest and are increasingly integrated into everyday clinical practice. Nevertheless, these modalities have shortcomings which should be considered in clinical routine. This comprehensive review provides an overview of potential challenges, limitations, and pitfalls associated with PET imaging and advanced MRI techniques in patients with gliomas or brain metastases. Despite these issues, PET imaging and advanced MRI techniques continue to play an indispensable role in brain tumor management. Acknowledging and mitigating these challenges through interdisciplinary collaboration, standardized protocols, and continuous innovation will further enhance the utility of these modalities in guiding optimal patient care.

Abstract Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454‐489.

Abstract Background Validation of the 2016 RANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. Accordingly, this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort sought to prospectively validate a revised MRI scorecard for response assessment in leptomeningeal metastasis. Methods Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the interobserver pairwise agreement. Results Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons, and 2 medical oncologists. Among single leptomeningeal metastases-related imaging findings at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (Kappa = 0.63), and the worst median concordance for spinal linear enhancing disease (Kappa = 0.46). The median concordance of raters for the overall response assessment was moderate (Kappa = 0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was fair (Kappa = 0.29) and virtually absent for their response to treatment. 394 of 700 ratings (20 patients x 35 raters, 56%) were fully completed. In 308 of 394 fully completed ratings (78%), the overall response assessment perfectly matched the summary interpretation of the single ratings as proposed in the scorecard instructions. Conclusion This study confirms the principle utility of the new scorecard, but also indicates the need for training of MRI assessment with a dedicated reviewer panel in clinical trials. Electronic case report forms with “blocking options” may be required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring.

Abstract Despite the widespread clinical use of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI, DSC-MRI methodology has not been standardized, hindering its utilization for response assessment in multicenter trials. Recently, the DSC-MRI Standardization Subcommittee of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition issued an updated consensus DSC-MRI protocol compatible with the standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) for high-grade gliomas that is increasingly used in the clinical setting and is the default MRI protocol for the National Clinical Trials Network. After reviewing the basis for controversy over DSC-MRI protocols, this paper provides evidence-based best practices for clinical DSC-MRI as determined by the Committee, including pulse sequence (gradient echo vs spin echo), BTIP-compliant contrast agent dosing (preload and bolus), flip angle (FA), echo time (TE), and post-processing leakage correction. In summary, full-dose preload, full-dose bolus dosing using intermediate (60°) FA and field strength-dependent TE (40–50 ms at 1.5 T, 20–35 ms at 3 T) provides overall best accuracy and precision for cerebral blood volume estimates. When single-dose contrast agent usage is desired, no-preload, full-dose bolus dosing using low FA (30°) and field strength-dependent TE provides excellent performance, with reduced contrast agent usage and elimination of potential systematic errors introduced by variations in preload dose and incubation time.

Abstract AbstractThe T2-FLAIR (fluid attenuated inversion recovery) mismatch sign is an easily detectable imaging sign on routine clinical MRI studies that suggests diagnosis of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant 1p/19q non-codeleted gliomas. Multiple independent studies show that the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign has near-perfect specificity, but low sensitivity for diagnosing IDH-mutant astrocytomas. Thus, the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign represents a non-invasive radiogenomic diagnostic finding with potential clinical impact. Recently, false positive cases have been reported, many related to variable application of the sign’s imaging criteria and differences in image acquisition, as well as to differences in the included patient populations. Here we summarize the imaging criteria for the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign, review similarities and differences between the multiple validation studies, outline strategies to optimize its clinical use, and discuss potential opportunities to refine imaging criteria in order to maximize its impact in glioma diagnostics.

AbstractA recent meeting was held on March 22, 2019, among the FDA, clinical scientists, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, clinical trials cooperative groups, and patient advocacy groups to discuss challenges and potential solutions for increasing development of therapeutics for central nervous system metastases. A key issue identified at this meeting was the need for consistent tumor measurement for reliable tumor response assessment, including the first step of standardized image acquisition with an MRI protocol that could be implemented in multicenter studies aimed at testing new therapeutics. This document builds upon previous consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol (BTIP) in high-grade gliomas and defines a protocol for brain metastases (BTIP-BM) that addresses unique challenges associated with assessment of CNS metastases. The “minimum standard” recommended pulse sequences include: (i) parameter matched pre- and post-contrast inversion recovery (IR)–prepared, isotropic 3D T1-weighted gradient echo (IR-GRE); (ii) axial 2D T2-weighted turbo spin echo acquired after injection of gadolinium-based contrast agent and before post-contrast 3D T1-weighted images; (iii) axial 2D or 3D T2-weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery; (iv) axial 2D, 3-directional diffusion-weighted images; and (v) post-contrast 2D T1-weighted spin echo images for increased lesion conspicuity. Recommended sequence parameters are provided for both 1.5T and 3T MR systems. An “ideal” protocol is also provided, which replaces IR-GRE with 3D TSE T1-weighted imaging pre- and post-gadolinium, and is best performed at 3T, for which dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion is included. Recommended perfusion parameters are given.

There is increasing scrutiny from healthcare organizations towards the utility and associated costs of imaging. MRI has traditionally been used as a high‐end modality, and although shown extremely important for many types of clinical scenarios, it has been suggested as too expensive by some. This editorial will try and explain how value should be addressed and gives some insights and practical examples of how value of MRI can be increased. It requires a global effort to increase accessibility, value for money, and impact on patient management. We hope this editorial sheds some light and gives some indications of where the field may wish to address some of its research to proactively demonstrate the value of MRI.Level of Evidence: 5Technical Efficacy: Stage 5J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e14–e25.