Pamela R Jackson1, Andrea Hawkins-Daarud1, Joshua Jacobs2, Timothy Ung3, Hani Malone3, Joo Kim4, Olya Stringfield5, Lauren DeGirolamo1, Emilio Benbassat6, Anthony Rosenberg6, Joseph Crisman6, Robert Gatenby4, Savannah Partridge7, Peter Canoll3, and Kristin Swanson1
1Neurological Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, United States, 2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States, 3Pathology, Columbia University, New York City, NY, United States, 4Diagnostic Imaging and Interventional Radiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States, 5Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States, 6Chicago, IL, United States, 7Radiology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, United States
Synopsis
We
hypothesize that tumors with different invasiveness indices (D/ρ), as predicted by the Proliferation-Invasion
(PI) mathematical model, will exhibit differences in ADC. Segmented tumor volumes
were determined on T1Gd and FLAIR MRIs for six GBM patients. The ROIs were used
to mask registered ADC maps and parameterize the PI model for calculating D/ρ. Lower quartile ADC values within the FLAIR and
FLAIR penumbra ROIs were positively correlated with D/ρ (p=0.041 and p=0.026, respectively). ADC skewness within the T1Gd ROI negatively
correlated with D/ρ (p=0.021). Understanding the
relationship between D/ρ and ADC could be important
for targeting brain tumor therapies.Purpose
We have previously developed a novel patient-specific
Proliferation-Invasion (PI) mathematical model
1 to estimate tumor cell
invasion in glioblastoma (GBM). The PI model is parameterized with tumor
volumes delineated on clinical MRIs and has been implemented to determine
effectiveness of treatment
2,3, assess surgical resection
benefit
4, predict IDH1 mutation status
5, and optimize radiotherapy
6. The apparent diffusion coefficient
(ADC) calculated from diffusion-weighted MRI is implicated as predictive of
tumor cellularity and microstructure in GBM. The purpose of our study was to
investigate whether tumor ADC values are associated with levels of tumor cell
invasion, as predicted by the PI model.
Methods
MRI: Our retrospective study
included six patients (mean age: 65.5 years, 50% female) with
contrast-enhancing GBMs. Each subject
underwent MRI with T1Gd, FLAIR and DWI sequences acquired at 1.5T or 3T. ADC
maps were calculated on a pixel-by-pixel basis at the console. The T1Gd images
and ADC maps were first registered to the FLAIR images for each patient (Mirada
Medical, Denver, CO). The volume of abnormality was determined separately on
T1Gd and FLAIR images for each tumor using in-house software developed in
MATLAB (Natick, MA). T1Gd regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn to exclude
necrosis. A FLAIR penumbra ROI was created by subtracting the T1Gd ROI from the
FLAIR ROI. The T1Gd, FLAIR, and FLAIR penumbra ROIs were then used to mask the
ADC maps. Summary statistics were calculated for the ADCs within each ROI: mean,
median, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, range, lower quartile (25th
quantile), upper quartile (75th quantile), interquartile range,
mode, and skewness. For each patient, a
circular ROI (5 pixel radius) was drawn in the contralateral normal appearing
white matter (cNAWM) on three consecutive slices depicting the T1Gd
abnormality. PI Model: The PI
model relates tumor cell density (c) to tumor cell diffusion (D) and tumor cell
proliferation (ρ)
$$ \frac{\partial a}{\partial b}=\triangledown \cdot(D(x)\triangledown c)+\rho c(1-\frac{c}{k})$$
where
t is time, x is location, and k is cell carrying capacity. The edge of the T1Gd
volume is associated with 80% cell density and the edge of the FLAIR ROI is
associated with 16% cell density7. A
feature of this model is that the solution asymptotically approaches a
traveling wave when solved in spherical symmetry. The invasiveness index, D/ρ, is reflective of the shape of this wavefront
(Figure 1), independent of the speed at which it is travelling4. Thus, it can be estimated given two points on
the wavefront from a single time point, which we obtain from T1Gd and
T2/FLAIR MRIs. For the results presented here, the D/ρ values for each tumor were estimated via a
Bayesian technique. By holding the product
constant, asymptotic wavefront velocity, the
Bayesian technique allowed us to find the most likely value of D/ρ which minimized error between the model
prediction and observed radial values while allowing for 0.5 mm
spherically-equivalent radial error in both the observation and in the MRI
acquisition. Statistics: Dunn’s
multiple comparisons test was used to compare the ADC values in the cNAWM to
different tumor ROIs. We used linear regression modeling to evaluate the
relationship between ADC metrics for each ROI and D/ρ. A p-value of 0.05 was
used to determine significance.
Results
For the 6 GBMs evaluated, D/ρ
ranged from 0.89 to 3.40 mm
2. T1Gd volumes ranged from 22.0 to 72.6
cm
3 and FLAIR volumes ranged from 74.7 to 200.3 cm
3. Figure
2 shows that the mean ADC within the cNAWM ROIs were significantly lower than
in the FLAIR and FLAIR penumbra ROIs (adjusted p=0.005 and 0.011, respectively).
Figures 3 and 4 show that the lower quartile of ADC values within the FLAIR and
FLAIR penumbra ROIs were positively correlated with D/ρ (p=0.041 and p=0.026, respectively). Additionally, the
skewness of ADC values within the T1Gd abnormality negatively correlated with D/ρ (p=0.021,
Figure 5).
Discussion
Generally,
tumors with higher D/ρ are thought to be
more invasive than tumors with lower D/ρ.
The FLAIR region,
particularly outside of the T1Gd, is the more invasive portion of tumor
that includes a complex interplay between normal tissue, tumor cells, and
edema. Within the FLAIR abnormality, it is possible that the leading edge of
tumor is beginning to breakdown normal tissue structure and the degree to
which this occurs is best reflected by lower quartile ADC values. Previous work has shown that evaluating the
lower portion of ADC histograms can be indicative of response to treatment
8,9. We plan explore this further in a greater
number of patients.
Conclusion
Understanding the relationship between D/ρ
and ADC could be important for targeting brain tumor therapies, quantifying
response to treatment, and further refining the PI model.
Acknowledgements
This
work sponsored by Diversity Supplement 3R01CA164371-03S1.References
1. Swanson, K.
R., Bridge, C., Murray, J. D. & Alvord, E. C. Virtual and real brain
tumors: Using mathematical modeling to quantify glioma growth and invasion. Journal
of the Neurological Sciences 216, 1–10 (2003).
2. Neal, M. L. et al. Response
classification based on a minimal model of glioblastoma growth is prognostic
for clinical outcomes and distinguishes progression from pseudoprogression. Cancer
Res. 73, 2976–86 (2013).
3. Neal, M. L. et al. Discriminating
survival outcomes in patients with glioblastoma using a simulation-based,
patient-specific response metric. PLoS One 8, e51951 (2013).
4. Baldock, A. L. et al.
Patient-specific metrics of invasiveness reveal significant prognostic benefit
of resection in a predictable subset of gliomas. PLoS One 9,
e99057 (2014).
5. Baldock, A. L. et al. Invasion
and proliferation kinetics in enhancing gliomas predict IDH1 mutation status. Neuro.
Oncol. 16, 779–86 (2014).
6. Corwin, D. et al. Toward
patient-specific, biologically optimized radiation therapy plans for the
treatment of glioblastoma. PLoS One 8, e79115 (2013).
7. Harpold, H. L. P., Alvord, E. C. &
Swanson, K. R. The evolution of mathematical modeling of glioma proliferation
and invasion. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 66, 1–9 (2007).
8. Pope, W. B. et al. Recurrent
glioblastoma multiforme: ADC histogram analysis predicts response to
bevacizumab treatment. Radiology 252, 182–9 (2009).
9. Pope, W. B. et al. Apparent
diffusion coefficient histogram analysis stratifies progression-free survival
in newly diagnosed bevacizumab-treated glioblastoma. AJNR. Am. J.
Neuroradiol. 32, 882–9 (2011).