المراجع

1. 1.
   [Price M, Ballard C, Benedetti J, Neff C, Cioffi G, Waite KA, et al. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2017-2021. Neuro Oncol 2024;26:vi1–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noae145.
2. 2.
   Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, Sminia P, van den Bent MJ. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. ThelancetComD Brand L Stalpers, W Taal, P Sminia, MJ van Den BentThe Lancet Oncol 2008•thelancetCom 2008;9:453–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70125-6.
3. 3.
   Ellingson BM, Bendszus M, Boxerman J, Barboriak D, Erickson BJ, Smits M, et al. Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1188–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nov095.
4. 4.
   Ellingson BM, Wen PY, Cloughesy TF. Modified Criteria for Radiographic Response Assessment in Glioblastoma Clinical Trials. Neurotherapeutics 2017;14:307–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-016-0507-6.
5. 5.
   Young JS, Al-Adli N, Scotford K, Cha S, Berger MS. Pseudoprogression versus true progression in glioblastoma: what neurosurgeons need to know. J Neurosurg 2023;139:748–59. https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.12.JNS222173.
6. 6.
   Boxerman J, Quarles C, Hu L, … BE-N, 2020 undefined. Consensus recommendations for a dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI protocol for use in high-grade gliomas. AcademicOupCom n.d.
7. 7.
   Lynch K, O’Brien R. 1H Magnetic resonance spectroscopy: A review of the current literature and its potential utility in veterinary oncology. Vet J 2014;200:240–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.009.
8. 8.
   Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj 2021;372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
9. 9.
   Whiting PF, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MMG, Sterne JAC, Bossuyt PMM, Rutjes AWSS, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36.
10. 10.
    Verma A, Kumar I, Verma N, Aggarwal P, Ojha R. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy - Revisiting the biochemical and molecular milieu of brain tumors. BBA Clin 2016;5:170–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbacli.2016.04.002.
11. 11.
    De Wit MCY, De Bruin HG, Eijkenboom W, Sillevis Smitt PAE, Van Den Bent MJ. Immediate post-radiotherapy changes in malignant glioma can mimic tumor progression. Neurology 2004;63:535–7. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.WN
12. 12.
    L.0000133398.11870.9A.
13. 13.
    Wang S, Martinez-Lage M, Sakai Y, Chawla S, Kim SG, Alonso-Basanta M, et al. Differentiating tumor progression from pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastomas using diffusion tensor imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:28–36. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4474.
14. 14.
    Larsen VA, Simonsen HJ, Law I, Larsson HBW, Hansen AE. Evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MRI in the differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. Neuroradiology 2013;55:361–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-012-1127-4.
15. 15.
    Guo J, Yao C, Chen H, Zhuang D, Tang W, Ren G, et al. The relationship between cho/naa and glioma metabolism: Implementation for margin delineation of cerebral gliomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2012;154:1361–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-012-1418-x.
16. 16.
    Widhalm G, Krssak M, Minchev G, Wöhrer A, Traub-Weidinger T, Czech T, et al. Value of 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy chemical shift imaging for detection of anaplastic foci in diffusely infiltrating gliomas with non-significant contrast-enhancement. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011;82:512–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2010.205229.
17. 17.
    Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner A, Read W, Steinberg DM, Lhermitte B, et al. Effect of tumor-treating fields plus maintenance temozolomide vs maintenance temozolomide alone on survival in patients with glioblastoma a randomized clinical trial. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc 2017;318:2306–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.18718.
18. 18.
    Pope WB. Predictive imaging marker of bevacizumab efficacy: Perfusion MRI. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1046–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nov067.
19. 19.
    Leao DJ, Craig PG, Godoy LF, Leite CC, Policeni B. Response assessment in neuro-oncology criteria for gliomas: Practical approach using conventional and advanced techniques. Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:10–20. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A6358.
20. 20.
    Zhang H, Ma L, Shu C, Wang YB, Dong LQ. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion MRI with quantitative ADC measurements in differentiating glioma recurrence from radiation necrosis. J Neurol Sci 2015;351:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2015.02.038.
21. 21.
    Ma B, Blakeley JO, Hong X, Zhang H, Jiang S, Blair L, et al. Applying amide proton transfer-weighted MRI to distinguish pseudoprogression from true progression in malignant gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44:456–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25159.
22. 22.
    Chu HH, Choi SH, Ryoo I, Kim SC, Yeom JA, Shin H, et al. Differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with radiation therapy and concomitant temozolomide: Comparison study of standard and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging. Radiology 2013;269:831–40. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122024.
23. 23.
    Mong S, Ellingson BM, Nghiemphu PL, Kim HJ, Mirsadraei L, Lai A, et al. Persistent diffusion-restricted lesions in bevacizumab-treated malignant gliomas are associated with improved survival compared with matched controls. Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1763–70. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3053.
24. 24.
    Gerstner ER, McNamara MB, Norden AD, LaFrankie D, Wen PY. Effect of adding temozolomide to radiation therapy on the incidence of pseudo-progression. J Neurooncol 2009;94:97–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-009-9809-4.
25. 25.
    Suh CH, Kim HS, Choi YJ, Kim N, Kim SJ. Prediction of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastomas using the initial and final area under the curves ratio derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:2278–86. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3634.
26. 26.
    Young RJ, Gupta A, Shah AD, Graber JJ, Zhang Z, Shi W, et al. Potential utility of conventional MRI signs in diagnosing pseudoprogression in glioblastoma. Neurology 2011;76:1918–24. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e31821d74e7.
27. 27.
    Chamberlain MC. MRI in patients with high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy [1]. Neurology 2006;67:2089. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000250628.10420.d8.
28. 28.
    Stockham AL, Tievsky AL, Koyfman SA, Reddy CA, Suh JH, Vogelbaum MA, et al. Conventional MRI does not reliably distinguish radiation necrosis from tumor recurrence after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 2012;109:149–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-012-0881-9.
29. 29.
    Fussell D, Young RJ. Role of MRI perfusion in improving the treatment of brain tumors. Imaging Med 2013;5:407–26. https://doi.org/10.2217/iim.13.50.
30. 30.
    Kalpathy-Cramer J, Gerstner ER, Emblem KE, Andronesi OC, Rosen B. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging of the physical processes in human Glioblastoma. Cancer Res 2014;74:4622–37. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0383.
31. 31.
    Tiwari P, Prasanna P, Wolansky L, Pinho M, Cohen M, Nayate AP, et al. Computer-extracted texture features to distinguish cerebral radionecrosis from recurrent brain tumors on multiparametric mri: A feasibility study. Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:2231–6. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4931.
32. 32.
    Kickingereder P, Burth S, Wick A, Götz M, Eidel O, Schlemmer HP, et al. Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: Identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models. Radiology 2016;280:880–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160845.
33. 33.
    Radbruch A, Fladt J, Kickingereder P, Wiestler B, Nowosielski M, Baümer P, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: Clinical relevance despite low incidence. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:151–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nou129.
34. 34.
    Verma N, Cowperthwaite MC, Burnett MG, Markey MK. Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: A review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies. Neuro Oncol 2013;15:515–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nos307.
35. 35.
    Mangla R, Singh G, Ziegelitz D, Milano MT, Korones DN, Zhong J, et al. Changes in relative cerebral blood volume 1 month after radiation-temozolomide therapy can help predict overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology 2010;256:575–84. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091440.
36. 36.
    Dowling C, Bollen AW, Noworolski SM, McDermott MW, Barbaro NM, Day MR, et al. Preoperative proton MR spectroscopic imaging of brain tumors: Correlation with histopathologic analysis of resection specimens. Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:604–12.
37. 37.
    Raimbault A, Cazals X, Lauvin MA, Destrieux C, Chapet S, Cottier JP. Radionecrosis of malignant glioma and cerebral metastasis: A diagnostic challenge in MRI. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014;95:985–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2014.06.013.
38. 38.
    Harris DC, Mignucci-Jiménez G, Xu Y, Eikenberry SE, Quarles CC, Preul MC, et al. Tracking glioblastoma progression after initial resection with minimal reaction-diffusion models. Res Harris, G Mignucci-Jiménez, Y Xu, SE Eikenberry, CC Quarles, MC Preul, Y KuangMathematical Biosci Eng 2022•researchgateNet 2022;19:5446–81. https://doi.org/10.3934/MBE.2022256.
39. 39.
    Booth TC, Williams M, Luis A, Cardoso J, Ashkan K, Shuaib H. Machine learning and glioma imaging biomarkers. Clin Radiol 2020;75:20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.07.001.
40. 40.
    Patel P, Baradaran H, Delgado D, Askin G, Christos P, Tsiouris AJ, et al. MR perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of high-grade gliomas after treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:118–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/now148.
41. 41.
    Dequesada IM, Quisling RG, Yachnis A, Friedman WA. Can standard magnetic resonance imaging reliably distinguish recurrent tumor from radiation necrosis after radiosurgery for brain metastases? A radiographic-pathological study. Neurosurgery 2008;63:898–903. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.000033 3263.31870.31.
42. 42.
    Matsusue E, Fink JR, Rockhill JK, Ogawa T, Maravilla KR. Distinction between glioma progression and post-radiation change by combined physiologic MR imaging. Neuroradiology 2010;52:297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-009-0613-9.
43. 43.
    Perry JR, Laperriere N, O’Callaghan CJ, Brandes AA, Menten J, Phillips C, et al. Short-Course Radiation plus Temozolomide in Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1027–37. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1611977.
44. 44.
    Seeger A, Braun C, Skardelly M, Paulsen F, Schittenhelm J, Ernemann U, et al. Comparison of Three Different MR Perfusion Techniques and MR Spectroscopy for Multiparametric Assessment in Distinguishing Recurrent High-Grade Gliomas from Stable Disease. Acad Radiol 2013;20:1557–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.003.
45. 45.
    Narang J, Jain R, Arbab AS, Mikkelsen T, Scarpace L, Rosenblum ML, et al. N e u ro - o n co lo gy 2011;13:1037–46.
46. 46.
    Repaci A, Ardizzoni A, Poluzzi E, Pagotto U. Ce Pt E Us Cr Ip T Pt Us Cr T 2022:1–43.
47. 47.
    Zhuang H, Yuan Z, Wang X, Wang P. Analysis of Risk and Predictors of Brain Radionecrosis After Robotic Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 2014;90:S324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.1072.
48. 48.
    Kruser TJ, Mehta MP, Robins HI. Pseudoprogression after glioma therapy: A comprehensive review. Expert Rev Neurother 2013;13:389–403. https://doi.org/10.1586/ern.13.7.
49. 49.
    Sadeghi N, D’Haene N, Decaestecker C, Levivier M, Metens T, Maris C, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient and cerebral blood volume in brain gliomas: Relation to tumor cell density and tumor microvessel density based on stereotactic biopsies. Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:476–82. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A0851.
50. 50.
    Prager AJ, Martinez N, Beal K, Omuro A, Zhang Z, Young RJ. Diffusion and Perfusion MRI to Differentiate Treatment-Related Changes Including Pseudoprogression from Recurrent Tumors in High-Grade Gliomas with Histopathologic Evidence. Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:877–85. https://doi.org/10.3174/AJNR.A4218.
51. 51.
    Manning P, Daghighi S, Rajaratnam MK, Parthiban S, Bahrami N, Dale AM, et al. Differentiation of progressive disease from pseudoprogression using 3D PCASL and DSC perfusion MRI in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2020;147:681–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-020-03475-y.
52. 52.
    Martucci M, Russo R, Schimperna F, D’Apolito G, Panfili M, Grimaldi A, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Primary Adult Brain Tumors: State of the Art and Future Perspectives. Biomedicines 2023;11. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11020364.
53. 53.
    Alexiou GA, Tsiouris S, Kyritsis AP, Voulgaris S, Argyropoulou MI, Fotopoulos AD. Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis: Accuracy of current imaging modalities. J Neurooncol 2009;95:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-009-9897-1.
54. 54.
    Rock J, Hearshen D, Scarpace L, … DC-, 2002 undefined. Correlations between magnetic resonance spectroscopy and image-guided histopathology, with special attention to radiation necrosis. JournalsLwwComJP Rock, D Hear L Scarpace, D Croteau, J Gutierrez, JL Fish ML RosenblumNeurosurgery, 2002 journalsLwwCom n.d.
55. 55.
    Hu LS, Baxter LC, Smith KA, Feuerstein BG, Karis JP, Eschbacher JM, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: Direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusio. Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:552–8. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1377.
56. 56.
    van Dijken BRJ, van Laar PJ, Holtman GA, van der Hoorn A. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with high-grade glioma, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2017;27:4129–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4789-9.
57. 57.
    Galbán CJ, Chenevert TL, Meyer CR, Tsien C, Lawrence TS, Hamstra DA, et al. The parametric response map is an imaging biomarker for early cancer treatment outcome. Nat Med 2009;15:572–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.1919.
58. 58.
    Paulson ES, Schmainda KM. Comparison of Dynamic Methods : Recommendations for Measuring Relative Cerebral Blood Purpose : Methods : Recommendations for Measuring Relative Cerebral Blood Volume in Brain Tumors. Radiology 2008;249:601–13.
59. 59.
    Mehta AI, Kanaly CW, Friedman AH, Bigner DD, Sampson JH. Monitoring radiographic brain tumor progression. Toxins (Basel) 2011;3:191–200. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins3030191.
60. 60.
    Flies CM, Van Leuken KH, Ten Voorde M, Verhoeff JJC, De Vos FYF, Seute T, et al. Conventional MRI Criteria to Differentiate Progressive Disease from Treatment-Induced Effects in High-Grade (WHO Grade 3-4) Gliomas. Neurology 2022;99:E77–88. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000200359.
61. 61.
    Hesse F, Wright AJ, Somai V, Bulat F, Kreis F, Brindle KM. Imaging Glioblastoma Response to Radiotherapy Using 2H Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Measurements of Fumarate Metabolism. Cancer Res 2022;82:3622–33. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-0101.
62. 62.
    Law M, Oh S, Babb JS, Wang E, Inglese M, Zagzag D, et al. Low-grade gliomas: Dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging - Prediction of patient clinical response. Radiology 2006;238:658–67. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2382042180.
63. 63.
    Chaskis C, Neyns B, Michotte A, neurology MDR-S, 2009 undefined. Pseudoprogression after radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide for high-grade glioma: clinical observations and working recommendations. Elsevier n.d.
64. 64.
    Sidibe I, Tensaouti F, Gilhodes J, Cabarrou B, Filleron T, Desmoulin F, et al. Pseudoprogression in GBM versus true progression in patients with glioblastoma: A multiapproach analysis. Elsevier 2023;181. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RADONC.2023.109486.
65. 65.
    Welker K, Boxerman J, Kalnin A, … TK-AJ of, 2015 undefined. ASFNR recommendations for clinical performance of MR dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging of the brain. AjnrOrgK Welker, J Boxerman, A Kalnin, T Kaufmann, M Shiroishi, M WintermarkAmerican J Neuroradiol 2015•ajnrOrg 2025. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4341.
66. 66.
    Fevre C Le, Constans J, … IC-C reviews in, 2021 undefined. Pseudoprogression versus true progression in glioblastoma patients: A multiapproach literature review. Part 2–Radiological features and metric markers. Elsevier n.d.