Synopsis
Diffusion weighting imaging (DWI) has been shown to be useful
in differentiating low- and high-grade tumors in the brain. The decreased apparent
diffusion coefficient (ADC) has been associated with increased tumor cellularity. However, tumor malignancy involves multiple microstructural changes
that may also affect changes in the ADC. The alternative way to
assess water diffusion in the complex microstructure is through the diffusion
heterogeneity measured by the stretched exponential model (α-DWI).
Recent studies using the α-DWI model have shown the increased
diffusion heterogeneity in high-grade tumors. However, it
remains unclear about the microstructural information provided by the α. The
purpose of this study was to investigate how the α-DWI model responds to tumor
malignancy related microstructural changes. We simulated a 3-D microenvironment
in tumors and a DWI experiment. We studied how ADC and the fitted parameters of
the α-DWI model responded to microstructural changes related to tumor
malignancy.INTRODUCTION
Diffusion weighting imaging (DWI) has
been shown to be useful in differentiating low- and high-grade tumors in the
brain. The decreased apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in high-grade tumors has
been associated with increased tumor cellularity
1. However, changes
of the ADC may be associated with other microstructural changes related to
tumor malignancy
2-4. An alternative way to assess water diffusion
in the complex microstructure is through the diffusion heterogeneity measured
by the stretched exponential model (α-DWI), S(b) = exp( ̶ b × DDC)
α
5-7. Recent studies using the α-DWI model showed the increased
diffusion heterogeneity in high-grade tumors
8-11. However, the relation
between the α-DWI and the tissue microstructure remains unclear. The purpose of this
study was to investigate how the α-DWI model responds to tumor malignancy
related microstructural changes. We simulated DWI experiments in 3-dimensional
(3-D) microenvironments with varying microstructural parameters associated with
tumor malignancy. We studied how ADC and the fitted parameters of the α-DWI
model responded to the microstructural changes.
METHODS
3-D
microenvironments in low-grade tumors were simulated through randomly packed
spheres with a gamma distributed diameter (mean ± std: 10 ± 7 µm
12).
Each sphere have two free-exchange compartments: nucleus and cytoplasm with their
volumetric ratio (NC ratio): 6.4 %
4,13 and diffusivities: 1.17 and
0.3 × 10
-3 mm
2/s
respectively
14 (Fig. 1a-b).
The simulated cell volume fraction (VF) was 65 %
2,3. The
extracellular diffusivity was determined based on the tortuosity measured in
low-grade tumors
2-3: D
ex = D
free/(tortuosity)
2
= 1.19 × 10
-3 mm
2/s.
The cell membrane permeability was 0.03 mm/s
15,16. According to the
histopathological studies in tumors, four independent microstructural changes
related to tumor malignancy were simulated: decreased VF from
65 to 55 %
2,3, increased extracellular tortuosity (T
ex) from 1.6 to 1.7
2,3,
increased cell density by a factor of 3.6
1, and increased NC ratio
from 6.4 to 21.6 %
13 (Fig. 1c). The cell density was computed as the number of
cells per unit volume. A pulsed gradient spin-echo (PGSE) experiment in human DWI (δ/Δ= 40/46 ms, G
MAX
= 40 mT/m) was simulated using a Monte Carlo
simulation developed in C++
15,17. 40,000 spins were randomly
distributed in the 3-D microenvironment and performed a random walk of 80,000
steps/sec. The spin phase accrual during applied diffusion gradients was
computed to generate DWI signals with b-values up to 5500 s/mm
2 in increments of 500 s/mm
2.
The signals were fitted with the α-DWI model using the Levenberg-Marquardt
algorithm in Matlab (Mathworks, Inc.). The ADC was computed with signals of b =
0 and 1000 s/mm
2. The goodness of fit was assessed using the reduced
chi-square statistic (χ
ν2). Each simulation was repeated
five times to quantify the precision.
RESULTS
All the data fits were within the 95 % confidence
interval (0.3 < χ
ν2 < 1.9) (Fig. 2). The increases of
the ADC and DDC were related to the decreased VF and
increased NC ratio. The percentage changes were 15.4, 16 % and 7.7, 9.8 %. Their
decreases were related to the increased T
ex and cell
density. The percentage changes were ̶ 10.1, ̶ 11.1 % and
̶ 6.6, ̶ 4.8 %. Interestingly,
the increase of the diffusion heterogeneity (decreased α) was specifically related
to the decreased VF. The percentage change was ̶
2.8 %. The decrease (increased α) was specifically related to the decreased T
ex. The percentage change was 3.7 %
compared to the percentage changes: 0.8 and 0.6 % in response to the increased cell density and NC ratio.
DISCUSSION
It has been postulated that the elevated cellularity in
high-grade tumors is related to a decreased diffusivity. However, our results
consistent with a previous finding
18 suggest that the increased NC
ratio, despite being correlated with cellularity
19, may result in
an increased diffusivity (Fig. 3). Our results also showed that the diffusion
heterogeneity measured by the α was more specifically related to the microstructural
changes in VF and T
ex compared with the measured diffusivity (Fig.
3). This
suggests that the diffusion heterogeneity may help better identify the changes
in VF and T
ex
that are associated with the proliferation and mitotic activity in tumors
3.
CONCLUSION
We demonstrated that
the diffusion heterogeneity measured by the α-DWI provided distinct information
from the measured diffusivity, and specifically reflected tumor malignancy related microstructural changes in VF and T
ex.
Acknowledgements
This work is partly supported by the
National Institutes of Health (S10RR29577, UL1TR000001) and the Hoglund Family
Foundation.References
[1]. Sugahara T, et al,
JMRI (9), 53-60, 1999.
[2]. Vargová L, et al,
Glia. (42), 77-88, 2003.
[3]. Zámecník J, et al,
Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. (30), 338-50, 2004.
[4]. Xu J, et al, MRM
(61), 828-33, 2009.
[5]. Bennett KM, et al,
MRM (50), 727-34, 2003.
[6]. Magin RL, et al, JMR
(190), 255-70, 2008.
[7]. Hall MG, et al, MRM
(59), 447-55, 2008.
[8]. Bennett KM, et al, MRM
(52), 994-1004, 2004.
[9]. Kwee TC, et al, NMR
Biomed (23), 179-87, 2010.
[10]. Sui Y, et al,
Radiology (277), 489-96, 2015.
[11]. Bai Y, et al,
Radiology, in press, 2015.
[12]. Aboitiz F, et al,
Brain Res. (598), 143-53, 1992.
[13]. Slater DN, et al,
Cytopathology (16), 179-92, 2005.
[14]. Grant SC, et al,
MRM (46), 1107-12, 2001.
[15]. Szafer A, et al,
MRM (33), 697-712, 1995.
[16]. Nilsson M, et al,
MRM (69), 1573-81, 2013.
[17]. Hall MG, et al,
IEEE TMI (28), 1354-64, 2009.
[18]. White NS, et
al, MRM (72), 1435-43, 2014.
[19]. Guo AC, et al,
Radiology (224), 177-83, 2002.