Perfusion-Weighted Imaging: The Use of a Novel Perfusion Scoring Criteria to Improve the Assessment of Brain Tumor Recurrence versus Treatment Effects

Abstract

Introduction: Imaging surveillance of contrast-enhancing lesions after the treatment of malignant brain tumors with radiation is plagued by an inability to reliably distinguish between tumor recurrence and treatment effects. Magnetic resonance perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI)—among other advanced brain tumor imaging modalities—is a useful adjunctive tool for distinguishing between these two entities but can be clinically unreliable, leading to the need for tissue sampling to confirm diagnosis. This may be partially because clinical PWI interpretation is non-standardized and no grading criteria are used for assessment, leading to interpretation discrepancies. This variance in the interpretation of PWI and its subsequent effect on the predictive value has not been studied. Our objective is to propose structured perfusion scoring criteria and determine their effect on the clinical value of PWI. Methods: Patients treated at a single institution between 2012 and 2022 who had prior irradiated malignant brain tumors and subsequent progression of contrast-enhancing lesions determined by PWI were retrospectively studied from CTORE (CNS Tumor Outcomes Registry at Emory). PWI was given two separate qualitative scores (high, intermediate, or low perfusion). The first (control) was assigned by a neuroradiologist in the radiology report in the course of interpretation with no additional instruction. The second (experimental) was assigned by a neuroradiologist with additional experience in brain tumor interpretation using a novel perfusion scoring rubric. The perfusion assessments were divided into three categories, each directly corresponding to the pathology-reported classification of residual tumor content. The interpretation accuracy in predicting the true tumor percentage, our primary outcome, was assessed through Chi-squared analysis, and inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa. Results: Our 55-patient cohort had a mean age of 53.5 ± 12.2 years. The percentage agreement between the two scores was 57.4% (κ: 0.271). Upon conducting the Chi-squared analysis, we found an association with the experimental group reads (p-value: 0.014) but no association with the control group reads (p-value: 0.734) in predicting tumor recurrence versus treatment effects. Conclusions: With our study, we showed that having an objective perfusion scoring rubric aids in improved PWI interpretation. Although PWI is a powerful tool for CNS lesion diagnosis, methodological radiology evaluation greatly improves the accurate assessment and characterization of tumor recurrence versus treatment effects by all neuroradiologists. Further work should focus on standardizing and validating scoring rubrics for PWI evaluation in tumor patients to improve diagnostic accuracy.