Back to Authors

Smits, Marion

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5563-2871

Mayo Clinic

Erasmus MC

Citations 13

“Real world” use of a highly reliable imaging sign: “T2-FLAIR mismatch” for identification of IDH mutant astrocytomas
Jain, Rajan , Patel, Sohil H. , Smits, Marion , Bent, Martin J. van den , Chi, Andrew S, van den Bent, Martin J , Smits, Marion , Jain, Rajan , Johnson, Derek R. , Castillo, Maurício , Chi, Andrew S, Cahill, Daniel P.

Neuro-Oncology | February 13, 2020 | Volume: 22 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 936-943

10.1093/neuonc/noaa041 Get It

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.
Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol for clinical trials in brain metastases
Smits, Marion , Huang, Raymond Y. , Barboriak, Daniel P. , Weller, Michael , Chung, Caroline , Tsien, Christina , Brown, Paul D. , Shankar, Lalitha , Gerstner, Elizabeth R. , Bent, Martin J. van den , Dunn, Gavin P. , Wen, Patrick Y. , Weller, Michael , van den Bent, Martin J , Smits, Marion , Barboriak, Daniel P , Huang, Raymond , Kaufmann, Timothy J. , Boxerman, Jerrold L. , Galanis, Evanthia , Burns, Terry C. , Parney, Ian F. , Brastianos, Priscilla K. , Lin, Nancy U. , Wen, Patrick Yung , Ellingson, Benjamin M.

Neuro-Oncology | February 7, 2020 | Volume: 22 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 757-772

10.1093/neuonc/noaa030 Get It

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.
Value of MRI in medicine: More than just another test?
Kühl, Christiane , Desmond, Patricia , Gong, Qiyong , Gulani, Vikas , Lim, C. C. Tchoyoson , Pipe, James G. , Smits, Marion , Sodickson, Daniel K. , Tempany, Clare M. , Wang, Meiyun , Smits, Marion , Beek, Edwin J.R. van , Anzai, Yoshimi , Ehman, Richard L. , Gold, Garry Evan , Hall-Craggs, Margaret Anne , Leiner, Tim , Reeder, Scott B. , Reinhold, Caroline , Vargas, Hebert Alberto

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | August 26, 2018 | Volume: 49 | Issue: 7 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/jmri.26211 Get It

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.