Skip to main content
Cureus logoLink to Cureus
. 2023 Apr 30;15(4):e38353. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38353

Radiological Biomarkers for Brain Metastases Prognosis: Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Modalities As Non-invasive Biomarkers for the Effect of Radiotherapy

Akram M Eraky 1,
Editors: Alexander Muacevic, John R Adler
PMCID: PMC10229388  PMID: 37266043

Abstract

Radiotherapy effect is achieved by its ability to cause DNA damage and induce apoptosis. In contrast, radiation can induce tumor cells’ proliferation, invasiveness, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Besides developing radioresistance, this paradoxical effect of radiotherapy is considered a challenging problem in the field of radiotherapy. This highlights the importance of developing new modalities to diagnose radioresistance early to avoid any unnecessary exposure to radiation and differentiate between metastases recurrence versus post-radiation changes. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC), arterial spin labeling (ASL), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) represent potential biomarkers to diagnose metastases recurrence and radioresistance. In this review, we will focus on recent studies discussing the possibility of using DWI, DSC, ASL, and DCE to diagnose radioresistance and recurrence in patients with brain metastases.

Keywords: quantitative imaging, brain tumors (primary or brain metastasis), radiologic biomarkers, miliary brain metastasis, magnetic-resonance imaging (mri), solitary brain tumor metastases (sbms), arterial spin labelling (asl), dynamic contrast enhanced mri (dce-mri), dsc mri, diffusion weighted imaging (dwi)

Introduction and background

Brain metastases (MTs) are the most common brain tumors. Brain MTs arise from primary tumors from distant organs, such as the lung, kidney, prostate, breast, and colon. Brain MTs are found to be difficult to diagnose especially if they present as a solitary mass without systemic manifestations [1]. Now the only available modality to diagnose brain MT and differentiate between MT recurrence and post-radiation changes is the histopathologic examination of the tumor through biopsy. Having non-invasive rapid biomarkers to diagnose brain MTs is essential to help in early diagnosis and avoid invasive biopsy and unnecessary radiation [2-4]. Using advanced MRI techniques as radiologic biomarkers become promising, non-invasive modalities for brain MTs diagnosis, MT recurrence identification, and radioresistance recognition. In contrast to conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which provides information about the anatomical features of the brain lesion of interest, quantitative MRI techniques provide information about the physiologic features of the brain lesion, such as vascularity, permeability, metabolism, and cellularity [5,6]. The term quantitative MRI in our article includes diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI) which includes dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, and arterial spin labeling (ASL) MRI [7-10]. These advanced techniques can provide us with qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative parameters. ASL labels magnetically the water molecules in the cerebral blood vessels and uses these water molecules as endogenous tracers to visualize and quantify the cerebral blood perfusion (Figure 1) [7,11,12]. In Figure 1, we present two different brain tumors having different blood perfusion on ASL. This demonstrates that in contrast to conventional MRI which shows the anatomical features and gross changes in the lesion of interest, such as necrosis, hemorrhage, and cystic changes, ASL as one of the advanced MRI techniques can depict the physiologic features of the lesion of interest. This also shows the potential role of ASL in differentiating between different tumors by exposing their different physiologic features, such as permeability and vascularity.​​​

Figure 1. Role of ASL MRI in differentiating between different brain tumors.

Figure 1

(A, B, C) The images represent a right frontal lobe oligodendroglioma (orange arrow). (D, E, F) The images represent right frontal lobe non-small cell lung cancer metastasis (red arrow). (A) FLAIR MRI shows a right frontal lobe oligodendroglioma. (B, C) axial pcASL (B) and color-coded CBF map (C) from pcASL data show no hyperperfusion. (D) FLAIR MRI shows a right frontal lobe non-small cell lung cancer metastasis with perilesional vasogenic edema. (E, F) axial pcASL (E) and color-coded CBF map (F) from pcASL data show heterogenous hyperperfusion amongst nodules at the super lesion margin. FLAIR, fluid attenuated inversion recovery; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; ASL, arterial spin labeling; pcASL, pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling; CBF, cerebral blood flow

In contrast to ASL which uses water molecules as endogenous tracers, DCE and DSC MRI techniques use gadolinium particles as exogenous tracers to visualize cerebral blood perfusion (Figure 2) [9,13-15]. Using ASL and DSC, we can calculate many quantitative parameters that reflect changes in cerebral blood perfusion, such as cerebral blood flow (CBF), cerebral blood volume (CBV), and the mean transit time (MTT) which equals CBV divided by CBF and represents the average time needed by gadolinium particles to move through the blood vessel in the lesion of interest [8,12,16]. Relative CBV (rCBV) represents the ratio between the tumoral CBV and the CBV in the contralateral non-tumoral white matter [17,18]. In Figure 2, we present two different brain tumors having different blood perfusion on DSC. This demonstrates that DSC as one of the advanced MRI techniques can depict the physiologic features of the lesion of interest. This also shows the potential role of DSC in differentiating between different tumors by exposing their different physiologic features, such as permeability and vascularity.

Figure 2. Role of DSC in differentiating between different brain tumors.

Figure 2

(A, B) The images represent a right frontal lobe oligodendroglioma (white arrow). (C, D) The images represent right frontal lobe non-small cell lung cancer metastasis (yellow arrow). (A) Post-contrast T1-weighted MRI shows a non-enhancing right frontal lobe lesion. (B) Color-coded rCBV map from DSC data depicting no hyperperfusion. (C) Post-contrast T1-weighted MRI shows a lesion with heterogeneous enhancement. (D) Color-coded rCBV map from DSC data shows hyperperfusion. DSC, dynamic susceptibility contrast; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; rCBV, relative cerebral blood volume

Using DCE-MRI, we can calculate qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative parameters reflecting cerebral blood perfusion and vascularity. Qualitative parameters include the three time-intensity curve (TIC) patterns. TIC type I represents rapid wash-in followed by the absence of washout with slower wash-in. TIC type II represents rapid wash-in followed by a plateau, while TIC type III demonstrates rapid wash-in followed by slow washout [9,19-21]. Quantitative parameters in DCE quantify the fluid movements between plasma and extravascular extracellular space (EES) and include Vp (fractional plasma volume), Ve (fractional volume of EES per unit tissue volume), Ktrans (forward volume transfer constant between EES and plasma), kep (efflux rate constant). Of interest, Vp reflects vascularity while Ktrans and Ve reflect permeability [13,14,22,23]. Additionally, many semi-quantitative parameters can be measured, such as peak intensity, time to peak, wash-in rate, wash-out rate, time to onset, and area under the curve [9,24]. Water diffusion is visualized in the lesion of interest by diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Any change in water diffusion can reflect changes in cellularity or membrane integrity in the tissues of interest. Using DWI, the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) can be calculated [10,25,26]. In the case of increased cellularity or fluid viscosity, water diffusion will decrease. As a result, DWI will give higher signal intensity and lower ADC values (Figure 3) [26-28]. In Figure 3, we present two different brain tumors having different diffusion and ADC. Compared to meningioma, oligodendroglioma was found to have increased diffusibility. This indicates that oligodendroglioma has decreased cellularity compared to meningioma. This demonstrates that DWI as one of the advanced MRI techniques can depict the physiologic features of the lesion of interest and differentiate between various tumors. 

Figure 3. Role of DWI in differentiating between different brain tumors.

Figure 3

(A, B) The images represent a right cerebral convexity atypical meningioma  (yellow arrow). (C, D) The images represent a right frontal lobe oligodendroglioma  (blue arrow). (A) FLAIR MRI shows a right cerebral convexity atypical meningioma with ventricular trapping. (B) ADC map from DWI data depicting reduced diffusivity. (C) FLAIR MRI shows a  right frontal lobe oligodendroglioma. (D) ADC map from DWI data shows increased diffusivity (shine-through artifact). DWI, diffusion-weighted imaging; FLAIR, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; ADC; apparent diffusion coefficient

Review

Radiotherapy for brain metastases

Surgical resection, single-fraction stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS), hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HFSRT), and whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) are considered the current treatment options for brain metastases [1,29,30]. Surgical resection may be not useful in surgically inaccessible areas. Additionally, it does not have a significant role in the treatment of multifocal brain metastases. WBRT has been the treatment of choice for multifocal metastases and occult micrometastases. Moreover, It has a significant role in improving quality of life, reducing neurological symptoms, and improving local control. However, cognitive deterioration has been found to be associated with WBRT [30]. In contrast to that, SRS has been shown to have fewer negative cognitive effects. However, SRS has a limited role in the management of multifocal brain metastases [29]. Radiation effect is achieved by its ability to cause DNA damage and induce apoptosis [31]. In contrast, radiation can induce tumor cells’ proliferation, invasiveness, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) [32]. Besides developing radioresistance, this paradoxical effect of radiotherapy is considered a challenging problem in the field of radiotherapy. This highlights the importance of developing new modalities to diagnose radioresistance early to avoid any unnecessary exposure to radiation and differentiate between metastases recurrence versus post-radiation changes. Quantitative MRI techniques including DWI, DSC, ASL, and DCE represent potential biomarkers to diagnose metastases recurrence and radioresistance. In this review, we will focus on recent studies discussing the possibility of using DWI, DSC, ASL, and DCE to diagnose radioresistance and recurrence in patients with brain metastases.

Quantitative MRI techniques to assess brain metastases response to radiotherapy

Using DWI and DCE, Shah et al. compared the perfusion and diffusion from pre-radiosurgery and post-radiosurgery brain metastases images. They found that pre-radiosurgery Ve and Ktrans are higher in patients with radioresistance. Using DWI, they found that the early post-radiosurgery perfusion fraction (f) is higher in patients with a progressive course of brain metastasis compared to patients with partial or complete responses to radiotherapy [33]. This suggests the potential role of these radiologic parameters as possible biomarkers to predict the treatment response and radioresistance in patients with brain metastases. Using DWI and DCE, Ye et al. compared the treatment outcomes in patients with brain metastases who were treated with WBRT and gefitinib. They found that ADCpost, ΔADCpost, and tumor regression rate (based on the combined tumor diameter from both DWI and DCE) are significantly different between the treatment-resistant group and the treatment-sensitive group [34]. This highlights the role of DWI and DCE as potential modalities to predict treatment response in patients with brain metastases. In a retrospective study by Zakaria et al., they found that higher post-radiation tumor ADC in patients with brain metastases was significantly associated with prolonged survival [35]. Given that high ADC indicates decreased cellularity and increased apoptosis, high ADC may play a role as a prognostic radiologic biomarker in patients receiving radiotherapy for brain metastases. In another study by Lee et al., they found that high tumor ADC values were seen in controlled brain metastases. In contrast, low tumor ADC values were associated with brain metastases with poor control [36]. Using ASL and DSC, Weber et al. found that the relative regional CBF ratio between the metastatic lesion and grey matter before radiotherapy and at a six-week follow-up can predict the response to radiotherapy. They found that an early relative regional CBF decline can predict tumor remission [37].

Quantitative MRI techniques to differentiate between post-radiation changes or necrosis versus brain metastases recurrence

An enhancing lesion following radiotherapy of brain metastases could be because of post-radiation necrosis or metastases recurrence [38]. Differentiating between these two types of lesions is crucial to avoid unnecessary treatment. While post-radiation changes need serial follow-up MRI, metastases recurrence may need surgery or radiotherapy [39-41]. This highlights the importance of developing rapid non-invasive modalities to differentiate between post-radiation changes and metastases recurrence. Quantitative MRI techniques, such as DWI, DCE, DSC, and ASL have been found as promising modalities to differentiate between tumor recurrence and post-radiation changes. Using DWI, Crowe et al. found that WBRT-treated metastases having significantly increased ADC are positively correlated with apoptotic cells. High ADC indicates decreased cellularity and increased apoptosis and necrotic tissue. Using DCE, They also found that Ktrans (a permeability parameter) is significantly higher in WBRT-treated metastases compared to the control group [42]. This indicates that WBRT disrupts BBB and BTB, subsequently increasing permeability. In another study by Hainc et al., they found that centrally restricted diffusion is associated with radiation-induced necrosis with a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 64% compared to tumor progression. They concluded that in the case of the absence of centrally restricted diffusion, there is a low probability of radiation-induced necrosis [43]. Measuring interval changes in CBV and Ktrans between pre-and post-radiation brain metastases, Knitter et al. found that interval decrease in CBV and Ktrans is associated with post-radiation changes and can differentiate them from true tumor progression [44]. Similar results were reported by Kuo et al. They found that increased relative CBV can differentiate between tumor recurrence and post-radiation changes in patients with brain metastases [45]. Of interest, Starck et al. found that pre-radiotherapy relative CBV and CBV are significantly decreased in patients with brain metastases who had true progression or early death after radiotherapy [46]. Using DCE and DSC, Morabito et al. found that there is a significant correlation between diagnosing recurrent brain metastases with Ktrans (98% of sensibility and 97% of specificity) and with rCBV (88% of sensitivity and 75% of specificity) [47]. This highlights the possibility of using rCBV and Ktrans as potential biomarkers to differentiate between recurrent brain metastases versus post-radiation changes and necrosis. In a systematic review by Kwee et al., they examined the accuracy of DSC in diagnosing post-radiation metastases recurrence. They found that DSC perfusion results have a pooled sensitivity of 81.6% and specificity of 80.6% to diagnose recurrent brain metastases [48].

Conclusions

Quantitative MRI techniques including DWI, DSC, ASL, and DCE represent potential biomarkers to diagnose metastases recurrence and radioresistance. This will help in avoiding any unnecessary exposure to radiation and differentiating between metastases recurrence versus post-radiation changes. 

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  • 1.Epidemiology of brain metastases and leptomeningeal disease. Lamba N, Wen PY, Aizer AA. Neuro Oncol. 2021;23:1447–1456. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noab101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Serum long non-coding RNAs as potential noninvasive biomarkers for glioblastoma diagnosis, prognosis, and chemoresistance. Eraky AM, Keles A, Goodman SL, Baskaya MK. J Integr Neurosci. 2022;21:111. doi: 10.31083/j.jin2104111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Non-coding RNAs as genetic biomarkers for the diagnosis, prognosis, radiosensitivity, and histopathologic grade of meningioma. Eraky AM. Cureus. 2023;15:0. doi: 10.7759/cureus.34593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Advances in brain metastases diagnosis: non-coding RNAs as potential biomarkers. Eraky AM. Cureus. 2023;15:0. doi: 10.7759/cureus.36337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Implications of neurovascular uncoupling in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of brain tumors. Pak RW, Hadjiabadi DH, Senarathna J, Agarwal S, Thakor NV, Pillai JJ, Pathak AP. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2017;37:3475–3487. doi: 10.1177/0271678X17707398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Functional MR imaging of the female pelvis. Koyama T, Togashi K. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:1101–1112. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Comparative analysis of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging for quantitative perfusion measurements of brain tumors. Jiang J, Zhao L, Zhang Y, et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4097217/ Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2014;7:2790–2799. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Differentiation of progressive disease from pseudoprogression using 3D PCASL and DSC perfusion MRI in patients with glioblastoma. Manning P, Daghighi S, Rajaratnam MK, et al. J Neurooncol. 2020;147:681–690. doi: 10.1007/s11060-020-03475-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Comparison of conventional DCE-MRI and a novel golden-angle radial multicoil compressed sensing method for the evaluation of breast lesion conspicuity. Heacock L, Gao Y, Heller SL, et al. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;45:1746–1752. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in gynecologic cancers. Motoshima S, Irie H, Nakazono T, Kamura T, Kudo S. J Gynecol Oncol. 2011;22:275–287. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2011.22.4.275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Arterial spin labeling perfusion: prospective MR imaging in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic intra-axial brain lesions. Soni N, Srindharan K, Kumar S, Mishra P, Bathla G, Kalita J, Behari S. Neuroradiol J. 2018;31:544–553. doi: 10.1177/1971400918783058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Early development of arterial spin labeling to measure regional brain blood flow by MRI. Koretsky AP. Neuroimage. 2012;62:602–607. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Perfusion MRI using dynamic-susceptibility contrast MRI: quantification issues in patient studies. Calamante F. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;21:75–85. doi: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e31821e53f5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in head and neck cancer: techniques and clinical applications. Gaddikeri S, Gaddikeri RS, Tailor T, Anzai Y. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37:588–595. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Utility of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating glioblastoma, primary central nervous system lymphoma and brain metastatic tumor. Lu S, Gao Q, Yu J, Li Y, Cao P, Shi H, Hong X. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1722–1727. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Human cerebral blood volume (CBV) measured by dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI and 99mTc-RBC SPECT. Engvall C, Ryding E, Wirestam R, Holtås S, Ljunggren K, Ohlsson T, Reinstrup P. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2008;20:41–44. doi: 10.1097/ANA.0b013e31815d4c70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphomas from high-grade gliomas by rCBV and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Xing Z, You RX, Li J, Liu Y, Cao DR. Clin Neuroradiol. 2014;24:329–336. doi: 10.1007/s00062-013-0255-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Standardization of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) image maps for ease of both inter- and intrapatient comparisons. Bedekar D, Jensen T, Schmainda KM. Magn Reson Med. 2010;64:907–913. doi: 10.1002/mrm.22445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Golden-Angle Radial Sparse Parallel (GRASP) MRI differentiates head and neck paragangliomas from schwannomas. Demerath T, Blackham K, Anastasopoulos C, Block KT, Stieltjes B, Schubert T. Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;70:73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2020.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Golden-angle radial sparse parallel MRI: combination of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and golden-angle radial sampling for fast and flexible dynamic volumetric MRI. Feng L, Grimm R, Block KT, et al. Magn Reson Med. 2014;72:707–717. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Differentiation of jugular foramen paragangliomas versus schwannomas using golden-angle radial sparse parallel dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Pires A, Nayak G, Zan E, Hagiwara M, Gonen O, Fatterpekar G. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2021;42:1847–1852. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. Verma S, Turkbey B, Muradyan N, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:1277–1288. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.8510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating head and neck paraganglioma and schwannoma. Malla SR, Bhalla AS, Manchanda S, et al. Head Neck. 2021;43:2611–2622. doi: 10.1002/hed.26732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging. Cha S, Knopp EA, Johnson G, Wetzel SG, Litt AW, Zagzag D. Radiology. 2002;223:11–29. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2231010594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.MR diffusion and dynamic-contrast enhanced imaging to distinguish meningioma, paraganglioma, and schwannoma in the cerebellopontine angle and jugular foramen. Ota Y, Liao E, Capizzano AA, et al. J Neuroimaging. 2022;32:502–510. doi: 10.1111/jon.12959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of rim-enhancing brain masses: is markedly decreased water diffusion specific for brain abscess? Tung GA, Evangelista P, Rogg JM, Duncan JA 3rd. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:709–712. doi: 10.2214/ajr.177.3.1770709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in acute stroke: theoretic considerations and clinical applications. Provenzale JM, Sorensen AG. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:1459–1467. doi: 10.2214/ajr.173.6.10584783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Diagnostic value of early postoperative MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging following trans-sphenoidal resection of non-functioning pituitary macroadenomas. Hassan HA, Bessar MA, Herzallah IR, Laury AM, Arnaout MM, Basha MA. Clin Radiol. 2018;73:535–541. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Does stereotactic radiosurgery have a role in the management of patients presenting with 4 or more brain metastases? Soike MH, Hughes RT, Farris M, McTyre ER, Cramer CK, Bourland JD, Chan MD. Neurosurgery. 2019;84:558–566. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Whole-brain radiotherapy in the management of brain metastasis. Khuntia D, Brown P, Li J, Mehta MP. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1295–1304. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.6185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ionizing radiation-induced DNA damage, response, and repair. Santivasi WL, Xia F. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2014;21:251–259. doi: 10.1089/ars.2013.5668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Induction of metastasis, cancer stem cell phenotype, and oncogenic metabolism in cancer cells by ionizing radiation. Lee SY, Jeong EK, Ju MK, et al. Mol Cancer. 2017;16:10. doi: 10.1186/s12943-016-0577-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Diffusion and perfusion MRI predicts response preceding and shortly after radiosurgery to brain metastases: a pilot study. Shah AD, Shridhar Konar A, Paudyal R, et al. J Neuroimaging. 2021;31:317–323. doi: 10.1111/jon.12828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Predictive effect of DCE-MRI and DWI in brain metastases from NSCLC. Ye C, Lin Q, Jin Z, Zheng C, Ma S. Open Med (Wars) 2021;16:1265–1275. doi: 10.1515/med-2021-0260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Does the application of diffusion weighted imaging improve the prediction of survival in patients with resected brain metastases? A retrospective multicenter study. Zakaria R, Chen YJ, Hughes DM, et al. Cancer Imaging. 2020;20:16. doi: 10.1186/s40644-020-0295-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Application of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to predict the intracranial metastatic tumor response to gamma knife radiosurgery. Lee CC, Wintermark M, Xu Z, Yen CP, Schlesinger D, Sheehan JP. J Neurooncol. 2014;118:351–361. doi: 10.1007/s11060-014-1439-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Assessment of irradiated brain metastases by means of arterial spin-labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: initial results. Weber MA, Thilmann C, Lichy MP, et al. Invest Radiol. 2004;39:277–287. doi: 10.1097/01.rli.0000119195.50515.04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Diagnostic accuracy of centrally restricted diffusion sign in cerebral metastatic disease: differentiating radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence. Puac-Polanco P, Zakhari N, Miller J, et al. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2023;74:100–109. doi: 10.1177/08465371221115341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Barajas RF Jr, Chang JS, Segal MR, Parsa AT, McDermott MW, Berger MS, Cha S. Radiology. 2009;253:486–496. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2532090007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. Chamberlain MC, Glantz MJ, Chalmers L, Van Horn A, Sloan AE. J Neurooncol. 2007;82:81–83. doi: 10.1007/s11060-006-9241-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Radiation necrosis, pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, and tumor recurrence: imaging challenges for the evaluation of treated gliomas. Zikou A, Sioka C, Alexiou GA, Fotopoulos A, Voulgaris S, Argyropoulou MI. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018;2018:6828396. doi: 10.1155/2018/6828396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.MRI evaluation of the effects of whole brain radiotherapy on breast cancer brain metastasis. Crowe W, Wang L, Zhang Z, et al. Int J Radiat Biol. 2019;95:338–346. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1554920. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.The centrally restricted diffusion sign on MRI for assessment of radiation necrosis in metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Hainc N, Alsafwani N, Gao A, et al. J Neurooncol. 2021;155:325–333. doi: 10.1007/s11060-021-03879-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Interval change in diffusion and perfusion MRI parameters for the assessment of pseudoprogression in cerebral metastases treated with stereotactic radiation. Knitter JR, Erly WK, Stea BD, Lemole GM, Germano IM, Doshi AH, Nael K. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211:168–175. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.DSC perfusion MRI-derived fractional tumor burden and relative CBV differentiate tumor progression and radiation necrosis in brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Kuo F, Ng NN, Nagpal S, et al. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2022;43:689–695. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI may contribute in prediction of stereotactic radiosurgery outcome in brain metastases. Starck L, Skeie BS, Moen G, Grüner R. Neurooncol Adv. 2022;4:0. doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdac070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.DCE and DSC perfusion MRI diagnostic accuracy in the follow-up of primary and metastatic intra-axial brain tumors treated by radiosurgery with cyberknife. Morabito R, Alafaci C, Pergolizzi S, et al. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14:65. doi: 10.1186/s13014-019-1271-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dynamic susceptibility MR perfusion in diagnosing recurrent brain metastases after radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kwee RM, Kwee TC. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;51:524–534. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cureus are provided here courtesy of Cureus Inc.

RESOURCES