» Articles » PMID: 37894340

Influence of MRI Follow-Up on Treatment Decisions During Standard Concomitant and Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Glioblastoma: Is Less More?

Overview
Journal Cancers (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Oncology
Date 2023 Oct 28
PMID 37894340
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

MRI is the gold standard for treatment response assessments for glioblastoma. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal interval for MRI follow-up during standard treatment. Moreover, a reliable assessment of treatment response is hindered by the occurrence of pseudoprogression. It is unknown if a radiological follow-up strategy at 2-3 month intervals actually benefits patients and how it influences clinical decision making about the continuation or discontinuation of treatment. This study assessed the consequences of scheduled follow-up scans post-chemoradiotherapy (post-CCRT), after three cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy [TMZ3/6], and after the completion of treatment [TMZ6/6]), and of unscheduled scans on treatment decisions during standard concomitant and adjuvant treatment in glioblastoma patients. Additionally, we evaluated how often follow-up scans resulted in diagnostic uncertainty (tumor progression versus pseudoprogression), and whether perfusion MRI improved clinical decision making. Scheduled follow-up scans during standard treatment in glioblastoma patients rarely resulted in an early termination of treatment (2.3% post-CCRT, 3.2% TMZ3/6, and 7.8% TMZ6/6), but introduced diagnostic uncertainty in 27.7% of cases. Unscheduled scans resulted in more major treatment consequences (30%; < 0.001). Perfusion MRI caused less diagnostic uncertainty ( = 0.021) but did not influence treatment consequences ( = 0.871). This study does not support the current pragmatic follow-up strategy and suggests a more tailored follow-up approach.

Citing Articles

A Comprehensive Review on the Role of MRI in the Assessment of Supratentorial Neoplasms: Comparative Insights Into Adult and Pediatric Cases.

Bhangale P, Kashikar S, Kasat P, Shrivastava P, Kumari A Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e67553.

PMID: 39310617 PMC: 11416707. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.67553.

References
1.
Lundy P, Domino J, Ryken T, Fouke S, McCracken D, Ormond D . The role of imaging for the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in adults: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline update. J Neurooncol. 2020; 150(2):95-120. DOI: 10.1007/s11060-020-03597-3. View

2.
Leonetti A, Puglisi G, Rossi M, Vigano L, Conti Nibali M, Gay L . Factors Influencing Mood Disorders and Health Related Quality of Life in Adults With Glioma: A Longitudinal Study. Front Oncol. 2021; 11:662039. PMC: 8173148. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.662039. View

3.
Loughan A, Lanoye A, Aslanzadeh F, Villanueva A, Boutte R, Husain M . Fear of Cancer Recurrence and Death Anxiety: Unaddressed Concerns for Adult Neuro-oncology Patients. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2019; 28(1):16-30. PMC: 7461618. DOI: 10.1007/s10880-019-09690-8. View

4.
Abbasi A, Westerlaan H, Holtman G, Aden K, van Laar P, van der Hoorn A . Incidence of Tumour Progression and Pseudoprogression in High-Grade Gliomas: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Neuroradiol. 2017; 28(3):401-411. PMC: 6105173. DOI: 10.1007/s00062-017-0584-x. View

5.
Thust S, Heiland S, Falini A, Jager H, Waldman A, Sundgren P . Glioma imaging in Europe: A survey of 220 centres and recommendations for best clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2018; 28(8):3306-3317. PMC: 6028837. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5314-5. View