Benjamin Lemasson1,2, Nora Collomb1,2, Alexis Arnaud3,4, Florence Forbes3,4, and Emmanuel Luc Barbier1,2
1U836, Inserm, Grenoble, France, 2Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble Institut des Neurosciences, Grenoble, France, 3INRIA, Grenoble, France, 4LJK, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
Synopsis
Brain tumor
heterogeneity plays a major role during gliomas growth and for the tumors
resistance to therapies. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the ability
of clustering analysis applied to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) data
to summarize and quantify intralesional heterogeneity
during tumor growth. A mpMRI dataset of rats bearing glioma was acquired during
the tumor growth (5 maps, 8 animals and 6 time points). After co-registration
of every MR data over time, a clustering analysis was performed using a Gaussian
mixture distribution model. Although preliminary, our results show that
clustering analysis of mpMRI has a great potential to monitor quantitatively
intralesional heterogeneity during the growth of tumors.
Introduction
For
tumor diagnosis, histology often remains the reference, but due to tumor
heterogeneity, it is widely acknowledged that biopsies are not reliable. There
is thus a strong interest in monitoring quantitatively intralesional brain
tumor heterogeneity. MRI has demonstrated its ability to quantitatively map structural
information like diffusion (ADC) as well as functional characteristics such as
the blood volume (BVf), vessel size (VSI), the oxygen saturation of the tissue
(StO
2), or the blood brain barrier permeability. In a recent study (1), these MR parameters were
analyzed independently from each other to demonstrate the great potential of a
multiparametric MR (mpMRI) protocol to monitor combined radio- and chemo-therapies.
However, to summarize and quantify all the information contained in an mpMRI
protocol while preserving information about tumor heterogeneity, new methods to
extract information need to be developed. The goal of this study is to
demonstrate the ability of clustering analysis (2) applied to longitudinal mpMRI to summarize and quantify
intralesional heterogeneity during tumor growth.
Methods
Animal
model: The local IRB committee approved all studies. 9L
tumors were implanted in 8 rats and imaging was performed every 2 days between
day 7 and day 17 post tumor implantation on a 4.7T Bruker system (D7, D9, D11,
D13, D15 and D17; respectively). The following mpMRI protocol was
acquired at each MR session: a T2-weighted spin echo sequence to obtain structural
information over the whole brain, a diffusion weighted EPI sequence to map the
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) and multiple spin/gradient echo sequences to
map T2 and T2*. A Gradient Echo Sampling of the FID and Spin Echo (GESFIDE)
sequence was acquired pre- and post-injection of USPIO (133 µmol/kg). A dynamic
contrast enhancing sequence was acquired using a RARE sequence (T1w images; n=15,
15.6 sec per image). After the acquisition of 4 images, a bolus of gadolinium-chelate
was administered (100µmol/kg). Parametric maps: for each MR session,
BVf and VSI maps were computed using the approach described in (3), StO2
using the method described in (4) and the
vessel permeability maps (Perm) was calculated as the percentage of enhancement
(voxel-wise) within 3 min post injection of gadolinium (cf. fig1-a). Co-registration:
each parametric map of each MR session was co-registered to that acquired at
the previous time point using rigid registration (SPM toolbox and Matlab). ROI:
tumor was manually delineated using the T2w images (Tumor-ROI; Red line in fig1-a). Cluster analysis: parameter values were centered and normalized.
Then, a Gaussian mixture distribution (Matlab function called: fitgmdist) was
use to performed the clustering analysis of all voxels included in the
tumor-ROI. The number of classes inside the mixture was selected by minimizing
the Bayesian information criterion (BIC).Results
Firstly, we
performed the clustering analysis 9 times using 1 to 9 classes. The optimal
classes number, defined by the BIC was 5. Each cluster may be seen as a tissue
type, as described Fig.1-E. The result of the clustering analysis is
illustrated Fig1-A for one animal. For each of the five clusters (labeled K1 to
K5), the evolution of the mean cluster volume over the entire population of
tumor is presented Fig 1-B. Note that the sum of the five cluster volumes
represents the whole tumor volume. Fig.1-C illustrates the longitudinal
evolution of the 5 clusters in 2 animals with different tumor growth rate (slow
on the top and high on the bottom). Although the cluster analysis analyzed
every voxel independently from each other, one can see that the clustering
results are spatially consistent at 1 time point but also over time. Indeed,
clusters are spatially grouped: for example, the green cluster is mostly located
in the center of the tumor (Fig1-C). Our result shows a difference in cluster
composition between the slow and the high growth rate tumors (Fig.1-C,D). For
example, in the slow growth rate tumor, the yellow cluster takes more and more
space in the tumor overtime (up to 49% at D17) whereas, in the high growth rate
tumor, it is the green one. The main difference between the yellow and the
green cluster is the strong reduction in StO2 in the green cluster
versus the yellow cluster (cf. Fig.1-E).Conclusions
To our
knowledge, it is a first study demonstrating the feasibility of performing a clustering
analysis on mpMRI data to monitor the evolution of brain tumor heterogeneity in
vivo. This approach highlights the type of tissue, which mostly contributes to
the development of the tumor. The composition in tissue type could be used to
refine the evaluation of chemo and radiotherapies and could contribute to
improve tumor prognosis.Acknowledgements
Grenoble MRI
facility IRMaGe was partly funded by the French program “Investissement
d’Avenir” run by the ‘Agence Nationale pour la Recherche’; Grant
'Infrastructure d’avenir en Biologie Santé' - ANR-11-INBS-0006. BL received a
stipend from the "Ligue contre le cancer" and from the
"Fondation ARC pour la recherche sur le cancer"References
1. Lemasson B, Bouchet A, Maisin C,
Christen T, Le Duc G, Remy C, et al. Multiparametric MRI as an early
biomarker of individual therapy effects during concomitant treatment of brain
tumours. NMR Biomed. 2015;28(9):1163-73. Epub 2015/08/01.
2. Coquery
N, Francois O, Lemasson B, Debacker C, Farion R, Remy C, et al. Microvascular
MRI and unsupervised clustering yields histology-resembling images in two rat
models of glioma. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2014;34(8):1354-62. Epub
2014/05/23.
3. Tropres
I, Grimault S, Vaeth A, Grillon E, Julien C, Payen JF, et al. Vessel size
imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45(3):397-408.
4. Christen T, Lemasson B, Pannetier
N, Farion R, Segebarth C, Remy C, et al. Evaluation of a quantitative blood
oxygenation level-dependent (qBOLD) approach to map local blood oxygen
saturation. NMR Biomed. 2011;24(4):393-403. Epub 2010/10/21.