Arash Latifoltojar1, Margaret Hall-Craggs2, Nikolaos Dikaios1, Kwee Yong1, Neil Rabin2, Alan Bainbridge2, Magdalena Sokolska2, and Shonit Punwani1
1University College London, London, United Kingdom, 2University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
Synopsis
Diffusion weighted imaging's apparent diffusion coeffiecient (ADC) has been shown to be a potential imaging biomarker for monitoring treatment response in multiple myeloma. However, in most instances, a mono- exponential fitting model is used to assess temporal changes. In this work, we investigated the Gaussian and non-Gaussian fitting algorithms and their respective quantitative biomarkers for assessing response in multiple myeloma using whole body diffusion weighted imaging. Introduction
Whole-body diffusion weighted MRI (WB-DWI) is
gaining widespread recognition in initial evaluation and treatment response
monitoring of bone marrow disease in multiple myeloma (MM). Apparent diffusion
coefficient (ADC) has been shown to have the potential for assessing response
and discriminating responder and non-responder groups in MM [1,2]. However, mono-exponential
DWI model (Gaussian model), widely used in vendors’ generated ADC maps, is
predisposed to fitting errors [3]. Non-Gaussian fitting algorithms might be
more accurate and provide further details of microstructural changes of bone
marrow [4]. This study aims to evaluate WB-DWI’s biomarkers in focal lesions (FLs)
of newly diagnosed MM patients prior to (Pre) and 8 weeks (8W) following Bortezomib-based
chemotherapy.
Material and Methods
Twenty-one patients (13 male, median age 52 (range
36-69)) with biopsy proven MM were enrolled prospectively. Free breathing axial
diffusion weighted echo planar imaging (DWI-EPI) with spectral attenuated
inversion recovery (SPAIR) plus slice selective gradient reversal (SSGR) fat
suppression (TR/TE 6371/71ms, slice thickness 5mm, pixel bandwidth 3369Hz,
acquisition matrix 124*72, SENSE factor 2.5, number of slices 40, b-values; 0,
100, 300 and 1000 s/mm2) was acquired from vertex to toe. Skeleton
was divided to 10 anatomical locations. Images were reviewed by two
radiologists in consensus and prospectively scored (0 - non-diagnostic quality
images; 1=unlikely, 2=indeterminate, 3=likely and 4=highly likely disease) for
the presence of focal lesions (FLs). Up to 4 largest FLs > 5mm and scored
3/4 selected for each anatomical site, to a maximum of 20 FLs per patient. A
region of interest (ROI) was drawn around the focal lesion on b1000 images and
then transferred to b0, 100 and 300 images (figure 1). Mean signal intensity (SI) was
recorded at each b-value. Three diffusion models were used to fit the signal
decay using an in-house MATLAB script: mono-exponential, stretched exponential
(SE) and diffusion kurtosis models (DKI) [4, 5]. Mono-exponential diffusion
coefficient (D
mono, ADC), diffusion coefficient (D
SE)
and heterogeneity index (α) from SE, and diffusion coefficient (D
DKI)
and diffusional kurtosis index (K) from DKI were calculated. All focal lesions
were re-evaluated following treatment. Disease response was assessed by international
myeloma working group (IMWG) criteria after termination of induction therapy
and patients were assigned to responder and non-responder groups [6]. Difference
in MRI biomarkers between Pre and 8W studies for each group was assessed by
Wilcoxon test.
Results
There were 15 responders and 6 non-responders
after induction chemotherapy. In total 254 focal lesions underwent quantitative
biomarker analysis. The median number of lesions evaluated per patient was 14
[range 1 to 18]. The number of lesions evaluated in responders and
non-responders was 186 [median 14, range1- 18] and 68 [median 12, range 7-15]
respectively. There was no significant difference in per patient median lesion
count between the two groups (p=0.33). D
mono increased significantly
in responders (median ADC 0.80 and 1.45 x 10-3 mm2/s
at Pre and 8W respectively, p=0.002) but not in non-responders (median ADC 0.61
and 0.68 x 10-3 mm2/s at baseline and
early post-treatment respectively; p=0.22) (figure 2). D
SE and α both
significantly increased in responders (median D
SE 0.95
and 1.49 at Pre and 8W respectively, p=0.003 and α of 0.77 and 0.81 at
Pre and 8W respectively, p= 0.03) whilst no changes observed in non-responders
(median D
SE 0.52
and 0.58 at Pre and 8W respectively, p=0.22 and α of 0.70 and 0.73 at Pre and 8W
respectively, p= 0.31)(figure 3). There was a significant increase of D
DKI in responders (median 1.34 and
1.86 at pre and 8W respectively, p= 0.002) and a significant decrease of K
(median 1.35 and 0.84 at pre and 8W respectively, p=0.02) following
treatment. No significant changes of D
DKI
and K were observed in non-responder group (median D
DKI and K
of 1.00 and 1.94 at Pre and 1.20 and 2.04 at 8W respectively, p=0.43 and 0.56) (figure 4).
Discussion and Conclusion
In line with previous publications [1, 2]
we demonstrated significant increase of Dmono in responders whilst
no significant changes were observed for non-responders. Furthermore, we showed
that similar pattern of temporal changes of D
SE and D
DKI occur in these groups. Observed changes of α, K in responders might be attributed to underlying
accelerated destruction of the bone marrow by FLs, creating expanded spaces
where behavior of water molecules move towards mono-exponential model.
On the other hand, absence of any significant
changes of biomarkers in non-responders could be related to a more conserved
marrow structure at early phases of treatment.
Longitudinal assessment of DWI related
biomarkers might provide more insight to long-term changes of bone marrow
following completion of treatment, remission or relapse of the disease.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1]
Horger M, Weisel K, Horge W et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI with apparent diffusion
coefficient mapping for early response monitoring in multiple myeloma:
Preliminary results. American Journal
of Roentgenology. 2011;196(6): W790-W795.
[2]
Giles S.L, Messiou C, Collins D.J et al. Whole-Body Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging for
Assessment of Treatment Response in Myeloma. Radiology. 2014;
271(3):785-94.
[3] Filli L, Wurnig M, Nanz D et al. Whole-body diffusion kurtosis imaging: initial experience on non-Gaussian diffusion in various organs.2014;49(12):773-778.
[4] Jambor A, Merisaari H, Taimen P et al. Evaluation of different mathematical models for diffusion-weighted imaging of normal prostate and prostate cancer using high b-values: A repeatability study. MRM.2015;73:1988-1998
[5] Yuan J, Yeung DK, Mok GS et al. Non-Gaussian analysis of diffusion weighted imaging in head and neck at 3T: a pilot study in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. PLoS One. 2014;23;9(1):e87024.
[6]
Durie BGM, Harousseau J-L,
Miguel JS et al. International
uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20; 1467-1473.