Huilou Liang1,2, Lianwang Li3, Yuchao Liang3, Siqi Cai4, Jing An5, Yan Zhuo1,2,6, Lijuan Zhang4, Danny JJ Wang7, and Rong Xue1,2,8
1State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, Beijing MRI Center for Brain Research, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 2University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 3Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, 4Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China, 5Siemens Shenzhen Magnetic Resonance Ltd, Shenzhen, China, 6CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 7Mark & Mary Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States, 8Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing, China
Synopsis
Arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion MRI with single post-labeling
delay (PLD) has been used to noninvasively predict the IDH1 mutation status in glioblastoma
patients. However, single-delay ASL can make inaccurate estimations of cerebral
blood flows (CBF) due to the variability of arterial transit times (ATT) among
individuals. In this study, we applied multi-delay 3D ASL technique with multiple
hemodynamic parameters including quantitative ATT, ATT-corrected CBF and
arterial cerebral blood volume (aCBV) in glioblastoma. Our results show that aCBV-based
relative perfusion parameters may provide a better identification of IDH1
mutation status and is worthy of further verification in future studies.
Introduction
Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly aggressive type of glioma and the most
common malignant brain tumor in adults. Previous studies revealed that isocitrate
dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations are mainly present in secondary GBMs with a significantly better prognosis, but very
rare in primary GBMs1–3. Thus, the accurate preoperative
identification of IDH1 mutation status is important to clinical treatment and
prognosis. Arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion-weighted imaging has been
applied in GBM patients to noninvasively predict the IDH1 mutation status4,5. However, these
studies employed the conventional ASL with single post-labeling delay (PLD), whose inappropriate
settings may lead to inaccurate estimation of the cerebral blood flow (CBF) due
to the variability of arterial transit times (ATT) among individuals6. To solve this
problem, multi-delay pseudo-continuous ASL (pCASL) was developed to simultaneously
provide multiple hemodynamic parameters including ATT,
ATT-corrected CBF and arterial cerebral blood volume (aCBV)7. To the best of our
knowledge, there has been no study that applies multi-delay ASL to GBM patients.
Therefore, this study aims to show the patterns of cerebral
perfusion in GBM patients using multi-delay 3D ASL7,8 and explore the potential values of these multi-parametric perfusion maps
in identifying the IDH1 mutation status in GBMs.Methods
Patients: After IRB-approved informed consent was
obtained, 60 preoperative patients with suspected glioma were recruited from Beijing
Tiantan Hospital, and scanned on a 3T MRI system (MAGNETOM Prisma, Siemens
Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) at Beijing MRI Center for Brain Research. Among
them, 6 treatment-naïve patients (45.3±10.5 years, 2 females) with pathologically
confirmed GBM were included in this study.
Imaging parameters: The imaging protocol
included T2-FLAIR, DWI, multi-delay ASL, pre- and post-contrast T1-MPRAGE
sequences. ASL scan was performed using a 5-delay pCASL protocol with
background suppressed 3D GRASE readout7,8 (resolution = 2.5×2.5×3mm3,
40 slices, PLDs = 0.5/1/1.5/2/2.5s, labeling pulse duration = 1.5s, total scan
time 7min11s).
Data processing: Post-processing of multi-delay
ASL data was performed offline in CereFlow (Translational MRI, LLC, Los
Angeles, CA) using the non-linear iterative curve-fitting approach8. The aCBV map was generated by the
product of ATT and CBF maps, and thus indicating the arterial blood volume from
the labeling plane to the imaging voxels7. Then quantitative perfusion maps,
together with anatomical images were co-registered to pre-contrast T1 images. Tumoral regions (ROI1) and contralateral regions (ROI2) were
manually delineated using ITK-SNAP9 on T2-FLAIR images referring to
post-contrast T1 and DWI images (Figs. 1 and 2). The absolute maximum CBF values (CBFmax)
in both ROIs were obtained. Then the relative CBFmax (rCBFmax)
were computed by dividing CBFmax in ROI1 by CBFmax in
ROI2. Similarly, the rCBFmean, raCBVmax, and raCBVmean
were calculated.
Data analysis: The patients were
divided into IDH1-mutant (IDH1m) and IDH1-wild type (IDH1w) groups according to
the IDH1 mutation status. Considering
the relatively small sample size, results of measured relative perfusion values
for both groups were displayed in scatter plots with descriptive statistics.
Besides, Pearson correlation analysis was carried out to evaluate the
relationship between relative CBF and aCBV perfusion values using GraphPad
Prism (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California). Probability (p) values < 0.05 were considered statistically
significant.Results
As summarized in Table 1,
there are 3 IDH1m patients (38.3±9.3
years, 1 female), and 3 IDH1w patients (52.3±6.4
years, 1 female) involved in this study. As shown in Fig. 3, in IDH1w group, the
relative CBF and aCBV perfusion values of all patients are larger than 1. In
IDH1m group, all patients except Patient #2 exhibit relative CBF perfusion
values less than 1, whereas all patients show relative aCBV perfusion values
less than or almost equal to 1. This is because CBF values were overestimated around
large vessels in Patient #2 (Fig. 1), which may be caused by arteriovenous shunting10. As displayed in Table 2, after excluding
the data of Patient #2, there is a moderately significant correlation between
rCBFmax and raCBVmax (r
= 0.914, p = 0.030).Discussion
Previous ASL studies4,5 have shown that the relative
(or normalized) CBF in contrast-enhancing lesions was significantly higher in
IDH1w GBM patients than in IDH1m GBM patients. In this study, IDH1w GBM
patients tend to have higher relative perfusion values (especially for raCBVmax
and raCBVmean) in enhanced lesions than IDH1m GBM patients. However,
the sample size used for this study is relatively small. Therefore, further
studies enrolling more GBM patients are needed to test the statistical
difference.
ATT
values can be variable in different regions of the brain or between subjects
(Figs. 1 and 2). Thus, multi-delay ASL was applied to provide ATT-corrected CBF.
Interestingly, in Patient #2, overestimated CBF values are still observed around
large vessels, where ATT values are shortened. However, aCBV values are not overestimated
around these large vessels. Therefore, aCBV may be a more robust perfusion imaging
parameter than conventionally used CBF, and thus may be used for more accurate
identification of the IDH1 mutation status in GBM patients. Conclusion
Our results show the
potential value of relative CBF and aCBV perfusion parameters in predicting the
IDH1 mutation status in GBM. The aCBV based relative perfusion parameters may provide
a better performance in predicting IDH1 mutation status in GBM patients and is
worthy of further verification in future studies with more patients.Acknowledgements
This
work was supported in part by the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (L182055),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China grants (81871350, 81961128030,
and 81627901), GJHZ20180928120207356, the Ministry of Science and Technology
of China grants (2019YFC0120901, 2019YFA0707103), and the Strategic Priority
Research Program of Chinese Academy of Science (XDB32010300).References
1.
Nobusawa S, Watanabe T, Kleihues P,
Ohgaki H. IDH1 mutations as molecular signature and predictive factor of
secondary glioblastomas. Clinical Cancer Research.
2009;15(19):6002–6007.
2.
Ichimura K, Pearson DM, Kocialkowski S,
et al. IDH1 mutations are present in the majority of common adult gliomas but
rare in primary glioblastomas. Neuro-oncology. 2009;11(4):341–347.
3.
Ohgaki H, Kleihues P. The definition of
primary and secondary glioblastoma. Clinical cancer research.
2013;19(4):764–772.
4.
Yamashita K, Hiwatashi A, Togao O, et
al. MR imaging–based analysis of glioblastoma multiforme: estimation of IDH1
mutation status. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2016;37(1):58–65.
5.
Yoo R-E, Yun TJ, Hwang I, et al.
Arterial spin labeling perfusion-weighted imaging aids in prediction of
molecular biomarkers and survival in glioblastomas. European Radiology.
2020;30(2):1202–1211.
6.
Alsop DC, Detre JA, Golay X, et al.
Recommended implementation of arterial spin-labeled perfusion MRI for clinical
applications: a consensus of the ISMRM perfusion study group and the European
consortium for ASL in dementia. Magnetic resonance in medicine.
2015;73(1):102–116.
7.
Wang DJ, Alger JR, Qiao JX, et al.
Multi-delay multi-parametric arterial spin-labeled perfusion MRI in acute
ischemic stroke—comparison with dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced
perfusion imaging. NeuroImage: Clinical. 2013;3:1–7.
8.
Hu HH, Rusin JA, Peng R, et al.
Multi-phase 3D arterial spin labeling brain MRI in assessing cerebral blood
perfusion and arterial transit times in children at 3T. Clinical Imaging.
2019;53:210–220.
9. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, et al.
User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures:
significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage.
2006;31(3):1116–1128.
10. Haller S, Zaharchuk G, Thomas
DL, Lovblad K-O, Barkhof F, Golay X. Arterial spin labeling perfusion of the
brain: emerging clinical applications. Radiology. 2016;281(2):337–356.