Ramesh Paudyal1, James Russell1, Ivan Wolansky1, Eve LoCastro1, Carl C. Lekaye1, Joseph O. Deasy1, John L. Humm1, and Amita Shukla-Dave1,2
1Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States, 2Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States
Synopsis
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)
is expected to be the second cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Quantitative
multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) provides the complementary physiological
properties of tumors tissue. The aim of this study was to characterize
microvasculature and microenvironment in mouse models of PDAC using mpMRI. The
functional status of mpMRI quantitative imaging metrics were validated with in
vivo histology markers of tumor perfusion (Hoechst 33342) and tissue morphology
(Hematoxylin and eosin staining).
Purpose
Pancreatic
ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death
in the United States [1]. PDAC
consists of an abundant extracellular matrix (ECM) and desmoplastic stroma [2] . The
stroma, a hallmark of PDAC, forms a major barrier for effective drug delivery. Recently,
multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) was used to assess changes in tumor microenvironment in a mouse
model of PDAC [3]. Quantitative
diffusion-weighted (DW)- and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI have shown
promise for differentiation and monitoring responses to therapy in mouse models
of PDAC [4,5]. PDAC
studies in clinical settings exhibited similar results [6,7]. To
extract robust quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) in heterogeneous tumor
tissue, the optimal model selection approach is needed for DW and DCE data
analysis [8,9]. This
study aimed to characterize the tumor microvasculature and microenvironment
using mpMRI in a mouse model of PDAC.Methods
Animals
and Tumor Models:
All
procedures involving animals were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and
Use Committee of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Tumors were
established by injecting 2×105 KPC 4662 subcutaneously into the right shoulder
region of athymic mice (n=5). The cells were originally derived from a murine
pancreatic tumor, genotype Pdx1-Cre;LSL KRASG12D;Trp53R172H/wt. The mpMRI of was
performed 10-12 days after tumor inoculation.
MRI
Data Acquisition:
MRI was
performed on a 9.4 T (Bruker BioSpin MRI GmbH) with ParaVision 360.1 operating
software. T2-weighted images were acquired (Bruker RARE sequence)
with TR/TE= 2092.34/33 ms, FOV=30×30 mm2, NA=2, NS=20, slice thickness=0.7 mm, slice
gap=0.7 mm, and acquisition matrix size (MS)=256×256. These images were used to
locate the tumor for the selection of DW and DCE-MRI slices. Diffusion-weighted images were acquired with
7 different b-values (0, 20, 80, 100, 200, 400, 700 s/mm2), TR/TE =
1500/ 20.12 ms, NS = 8-10; MS = 192x96, NA =1, slice thickness=0.8 mm and
gap=1.05 mm.
The
DCE-MRI series were acquired using a FLASH sequence with TR/TE=54.63/1.29
ms, NA=1, NS=6, flip angle (FA)=15°,
MS=132×106, and temporal resolution 5.79 s, resulting in a total acquisition
time of 14 min 38 s. After acquisition of 20 precontrast images, 0.1 mL of
contrast agent was injected at a constant rate via tail vein catheter. The precontrast
T1w images for T10 mapping were acquired using four different
TR values, i.e. 100 ms, 200 ms, 800 ms, and 2000 ms. Other scanning parameters
were the same as mentioned above.
Histology:
Tumor-bearing mice were injected i.v. with 0.1
ml Hoechst 33342 (10 mg/ml in saline) and euthanized by CO2 inhalation after 1
minute. Tumors were removed, frozen in OCT, and sectioned at 10 um thickness.
Fluorescent images of unfixed sections were acquired using an Olympus
microscope, where blue fluorescence indicates the presence of perfused vessels.
Sections were subsequently stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E),
according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and reimaged on brightfield.
Image
Analysis: Regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn on DW-
and DCE-MRI images using ITK-SNAP. The DW data was fitted to a monoexponential
model which yields the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (mm2/s)
[10] and intravoxel
incoherent motion (IVIM) modeling method which provides estimates of true and
pseudo diffusion coefficients (D and D* [mm2/s]) and perfusion
fraction (f) [11]. For DCE,
the arterial input function (neck carotid artery), dynamic images, and T10
values were incorporated into the standard Tofts and extended Tofts model
(TM: Ktrans [min-1] and ve) and ETM: Ktrans [min-1],
ve, and vp), and fast exchange regime (FXR: Ktrans
(min-1, ve, and mean lifetime of intracellular water
protons, τi [s]). The corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) [12] was used
to examine the fitting performance of each pharmacokinetic model [13].Results
Tables 1
and 2 show the metric value from DW and DCE-MRI data modeling (Figure 1). FXR
model yielded the smallest AICc, 63.89% of the total voxels (i.e., 22246) in
comparison to ETM (25.66%) and TM (8.45 %) (Table 2), respectively. Parametric maps of Ktrans, ADC,
and D, ve, and ti
exhibited the functional status of tumor microvasculature, microenvironment,
and cellular metabolic activity (Figure 2). The in vivo histology markers Hoechst
33342 and H&E stained images showed that the tumors have an immature vasculature
with heterogeneous perfusion (Figure 3a) and tissue morphologies (Figure 3b). Representative DCE model fit plot and the corresponding models
percentage of pixel value with the smallest AICc are shown in Figure 4.The QIBs of tumor
cellularity, ADC (D) and the leakage space (ve) were positively correlated
(r= 0.42 for ADC and 0.53 for D) (Figure 5) and D and τi
were negatively correlated (r=-0.42).Discussion
The
intratumoral differences in the tumor microenvironment are associated with the
amount of tumor cells and stroma. A positive correlation between ADC (D) and ve
indicated accumulation of cystic areas within the tumor. The model selection approach
is implemented to identify the most-robust optimal model QIBs to underpin tumor
characteristics. Tumor functional status and heterogeneity exhibited by the
parametric maps is validated by in vivo histology markers of tumor vasculature
(Hoechst 33342) and tissue morphology (H&E staining).Conclusion
The
present study suggests that QIBs derived from mpMRI may be pivotal to evaluate
the physiological changes associated with response to therapy in PDAC.Acknowledgements
We acknowledge funding support from NCI R01
CA194321.References
1. Siegel,
R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Fuchs, H.E.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2021, 71, 7-33.
2. Provenzano, P.P.; Hingorani, S.R.
Hyaluronan, fluid pressure, and stromal resistance in pancreas cancer. British journal of cancer 2013, 108, 1-8, doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.569.
3. Vohra, R.; Park, J.; Wang, Y.N.;
Gravelle, K.; Whang, S.; Hwang, J.H.; Lee, D. Evaluation of pancreatic tumor
development in KPC mice using multi-parametric MRI. Cancer Imaging 2018, 18, 41, doi:10.1186/s40644-018-0172-6.
4. Trajkovic-Arsic, M.; Heid, I.; Steiger,
K.; Gupta, A.; Fingerle, A.; Worner, C.; Teichmann, N.; Sengkwawoh-Lueong, S.;
Wenzel, P.; Beer, A.J.; et al. Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) predicts
therapy response in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Sci Rep 2017, 7, 17038, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16826-z.
5. Cao, J.; Pickup, S.; Clendenin, C.;
Blouw, B.; Choi, H.; Kang, D.; Rosen, M.; O'Dwyer, P.J.; Zhou, R. Dynamic
Contrast-enhanced MRI Detects Responses to Stroma-directed Therapy in Mouse
Models of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Clin
Cancer Res 2019, 25, 2314-2322,
doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2276.
6. Choi, S.Y.; Kim, S.H.; Kang, T.W.;
Song, K.D.; Park, H.J.; Choi, Y.H. Differentiating Mass-Forming Autoimmune
Pancreatitis From Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma on the Basis of Contrast-Enhanced
MRI and DWI Findings. Am J Roentgenol 2016, 206, 291-300, doi:10.2214/Ajr.15.14974.
7. Kinh Do, R.; Reyngold, M.; Paudyal,
R.; Oh, J.H.; Konar, A.S.; LoCastro, E.; Goodman, K.A.; Shukla-Dave, A.
Diffusion-Weighted and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Derived Imaging Metrics
for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma:
Preliminary Findings. Tomography 2020, 6, 261-271, doi:10.18383/j.tom.2020.00015.
8. Merisaari, H.; Laakso, H.;
Liljenback, H.; Virtanen, H.; Aronen, H.J.; Minn, H.; Poutanen, M.; Roivainen,
A.; Liimatainen, T.; Jambor, I. Statistical Evaluation of Different
Mathematical Models for Diffusion Weighted Imaging of Prostate Cancer
Xenografts in Mice. Front Oncol 2021, 11, 583921, doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.583921.
9. Ewing, J.R.; Bagher‐Ebadian, H.
Model selection in measures of vascular parameters using dynamic
contrast‐enhanced MRI: experimental and clinical applications. NMR in Biomedicine 2013, 26, 1028-1041.
10. Chenevert, T.L.; Stegman, L.D.;
Taylor, J.M.; Robertson, P.L.; Greenberg, H.S.; Rehemtulla, A.; Ross, B.D.
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: an early surrogate marker of therapeutic
efficacy in brain tumors. JNCI: Journal
of the National Cancer Institute 2000,
92, 2029-2036.
11. Le Bihan, D.; Breton, E.; Lallemand,
D.; Grenier, P.; Cabanis, E.; Laval-Jeantet, M. MR imaging of intravoxel
incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic
disorders. Radiology 1986, 161, 401-407, doi:10.1148/radiology.161.2.3763909.
12. Akaike, H. New Look at
Statistical-Model Identification. Ieee T
Automat Contr 1974, Ac19, 716-723, doi:Doi
10.1109/Tac.1974.1100705.
13. Paudyal, R.; Lu, Y.; Hatzoglou, V.;
Moreira, A.; Stambuk, H.E.; Oh, J.H.; Cunanan, K.M.; Aramburu Nunez, D.;
Mazaheri, Y.; Gonen, M.; et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI model selection
for predicting tumor aggressiveness in papillary thyroid cancers. NMR Biomed 2020, 33, e4166,
doi:10.1002/nbm.4166.