Neuro-oncology advances最新文献

The spinal cord occupies a narrow region and is tightly surrounded by osseous and ligamentous structures; spinal tumors can damage this structure and deprive patients of their ability to independently perform activities of daily living. Hence, imaging is vital for the prompt detection and accurate diagnosis of spinal tumors, as well as determining the optimal treatment and follow-up plan. However, many clinicians may not be familiar with the imaging characteristics of spinal tumors due to their rarity. In addition, spinal surgeons might not fully utilize imaging for the surgical planning and management of spinal tumors because of the complex heterogeneity of these lesions. In the present review, we focus on conventional and advanced spinal tumor imaging techniques. These imaging modalities include computed tomography, positron emission tomography, digital subtraction angiography, conventional and microstructural magnetic resonance imaging, and high-resolution ultrasound. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of conventional and emerging imaging modalities, followed by an examination of cutting-edge medical technology to complement current needs in the field of spinal tumors. Moreover, machine learning and artificial intelligence are anticipated to impact the application of spinal imaging techniques. Through this review, we discuss the importance of conventional and advanced spinal tumor imaging, and the opportunity to combine advanced technologies with conventional modalities to better manage patients with these lesions.

Background: Immunotherapy is an effective "precision medicine" treatment for several cancers. Imaging signatures of the underlying genome (radiogenomics) in glioblastoma patients may serve as preoperative biomarkers of the tumor-host immune apparatus. Validated biomarkers would have the potential to stratify patients during immunotherapy clinical trials, and if trials are beneficial, facilitate personalized neo-adjuvant treatment. The increased use of whole genome sequencing data, and the advances in bioinformatics and machine learning make such developments plausible. We performed a systematic review to determine the extent of development and validation of immune-related radiogenomic biomarkers for glioblastoma.

Methods: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines using the PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases. Qualitative analysis was performed by incorporating the QUADAS 2 tool and CLAIM checklist. PROSPERO registered: CRD42022340968. Extracted data were insufficiently homogenous to perform a meta-analysis.

Results: Nine studies, all retrospective, were included. Biomarkers extracted from magnetic resonance imaging volumes of interest included apparent diffusion coefficient values, relative cerebral blood volume values, and image-derived features. These biomarkers correlated with genomic markers from tumor cells or immune cells or with patient survival. The majority of studies had a high risk of bias and applicability concerns regarding the index test performed.

Conclusions: Radiogenomic immune biomarkers have the potential to provide early treatment options to patients with glioblastoma. Targeted immunotherapy, stratified by these biomarkers, has the potential to allow individualized neo-adjuvant precision treatment options in clinical trials. However, there are no prospective studies validating these biomarkers, and interpretation is limited due to study bias with little evidence of generalizability.

Background: Primary central nervous system lymphomas (PCNSL) pose a challenge as they may mimic gliomas on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging, compelling precise differentiation for appropriate treatment. This study focuses on developing an automated MRI-based workflow to distinguish between PCNSL and gliomas.

Methods: MRI examinations of 240 therapy-naive patients (141 males and 99 females, mean age: 55.16 years) with cerebral gliomas and PCNSLs (216 gliomas and 24 PCNSLs), each comprising a non-contrast T1-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted sequence were included in the study. HD-GLIO, a pre-trained segmentation network, was used to generate segmentations automatically. To validate the segmentation efficiency, 237 manual segmentations were prepared (213 gliomas and 24 PCNSLs). Subsequently, radiomics features were extracted following feature selection and training of an XGBoost algorithm for classification.

Results: The segmentation models for gliomas and PCNSLs achieved a mean Sørensen-Dice coefficient of 0.82 and 0.80 for whole tumors, respectively. Three classification models were developed in this study to differentiate gliomas from PCNSLs. The first model differentiated PCNSLs from gliomas, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.99 (F1-score: 0.75). The second model discriminated between high-grade gliomas and PCNSLs with an AUC of 0.91 (F1-score: 0.6), and the third model differentiated between low-grade gliomas and PCNSLs with an AUC of 0.95 (F1-score: 0.89).

Conclusions: This study serves as a pilot investigation presenting an automated virtual biopsy workflow that distinguishes PCNSLs from cerebral gliomas. Prior to clinical use, it is necessary to validate the results in a prospective multicenter setting with a larger number of PCNSL patients.