Lingmin Zheng1, Danjie Lin1, Hui Zheng1, Yang Song2, Yunjing Xue1, and Lin Lin1
1Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China, 2MR Scientific Marketing, Siemens, Healthineers Ltd, Shanghai, China
Synopsis
Keywords: Tumors (Pre-Treatment), Quantitative Imaging
Motivation: The consistency of intracranial meningiomas is essential for determining the necessary surgical instruments and influencing the outcome of surgery. However, no specific feature of conventional MRI is reliable in predicting the meningiomas consistency.
Goal(s): To evaluate and compare the potential of various MRI perfusion and diffusion metrics in predicting the meningiomas consistency.
Approach: Histogram parameters of metrics obtained from DKI, DTI, ASL and DSC were included in logistic regression models to predict meningiomas consistency.
Results: DTI, ASL, and DSC metrics could significantly differentiate between soft and hard meningiomas. The DSC combined model yielded the highest AUC of 0.858.
Impact: The differentiation of soft and hard meningiomas was feasible by combining histogram parameters of DSC and DTI metrics.
Purpose
Meningioma is the most common primary brain tumors.1
Although conventional MRI provides several identifiable features for
meningiomas, no specific feature is reliable in predicting the tumor
consistency.2 Histogram analysis of perfusion and diffusion metrics have
been successfully used in predicting the grade, subtype and proliferative activity of
meningiomas.3-4 In this study, we prospectively evaluated and compared
the potential of various perfusion and diffusion metrics obtained from the diffusion
kurtosis imaging (DKI), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), arterial spin labelling
(ASL) and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced imaging (DSC) in predicting
the meningioma consistency.Methods
Seventy-seven
consecutive patients with histopathologically confirmed meningiomas were
prospectively enrolled in this study. MRI scans were performed on a 3T scanner
(MAGNETOM Prisma, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany). DKI used a
Single-shot Echo-Planar Imaging (SE-EPI) diffusion sequence for image
acquisition (TR/TE = 4,540/72.8 ms, Average = 1, matrix = 256 × 256, sections
thickness = 4 mm, spacing = 0 mm, FOV = 24 cm, number of b values = 3, b = 0,
1000 and 2000 s/mm2, number of directions = 30 for each, acquisition time = 4
min 51 seconds). ASL imaging was performed by pseudo-continuous ASL pulse
sequence using a stack of spirals with a background-suppressed 3D fast spin
echo imaging sequences (TR/TE = 4,653/10.5 ms, Average = 3, matrix = 512 × 8, FOV = 24cm, post-labeling delay = 1525 ms, slice thickness = 4
mm, inter-slice gap = 0 mm). DSC used a gradient-recalled echo-planar imaging
(GRE-EPI) T2*WI sequence (TR = 1500 ms, minimum TE, Average = 1, matrix = 96 ×
128, slice thickness = 6 mm, FOV = 24 cm, flip angle = 60°). Diffusional
Kurtosis Estimator (version 2.5.1, Medical University of South Carolina) was
implemented to calculate diffusion kurtosis and tensor metrics. The ASL and DSC
data were obtained and transferred to a workstation (Advantage Workstation 4.6,
GE HealthCare, Waukesha/WI, USA) for processing. Two senior neurosurgeons
evaluated the tumor consistency and classified them as soft and hard groups. A
Volume of interest (VOI) placed on the preoperative axial contrast-enhanced
T1WI to outline the whole tumor area by using ITK-SNAP (Version 3.6.0) were then automatically
projected onto functional maps by a co-registration tool based on SPM8 (http://www.fl.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/). Eighteen histogram
parameters recommended by Pyradiomics 5 (presented in the Fig.
S1.) were extracted by Feature Explorer (Version 0.5.3) from 17 functional maps
including mean diffusivity (MDDKI, MDDTI), axial
diffusivity (ADDKI, ADDTI), radial diffusivity (RDDKI,
RDDTI), fractional anisotropy (FADKI, FADTI), mean kurtosis (MK), axial
kurtosis (AK), radial kurtosis (RK), cerebral blood flow (CBFASL),
relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF), relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), time
to top (Tmax), mean transit time (MTT), and time to peak (TTP), respectively. Histogram
parameters found to be related to tumor consistency in the univariate analysis were
further included in backward stepwise logistic regression analyses to build
combined models for each modality. The diagnostic performance of each model was
evaluated by Receiver operating characteristic analysis. DeLong test was used
to compare AUCs.Results
Thirty of 77 tumors were included in the hard group by
neurosurgeons, and the rest were classified as soft tumors. Histogram
parameters of DTI metrics (ADDTI and FADTI), ASL (CBFASL)
and DSC (Tmax, rCBV and rCBF) were found to be significantly related to the
meningiomas consistency and then be included into the combined models (P<0.05). However, none of DKI metrics can significantly
differentiate soft and hard meningiomas. Representative
cases are shown in Figs. 1. Fig. 2 shows that the DSC combined model yielded the highest
AUC of 0.858. The DTI combined model had a relatively lower AUC value of 0.810,
while the AUC of the ASL combined model was only 0.648. Delong test indicated
that there was no significant difference between DTI and DSC model diagnostic
performance.Discussion and conclusion
In this study, 20 histogram parameters of perfusion and
diffusion metrics were found to be independently related to the meningiomas
consistency, and the differentiation of soft and hard meningiomas is feasible
by DSC and DTI combined models. Generally, we found that the histogram
parameters of perfusion metrics were significantly lower in hard tumors than in
soft tumors. It suggests the potential correlation between higher tumor micro-perfusion
and softer consistency. On the
contrary, the histogram parameters of diffusion metrics were significantly
higher in hard tumors than in soft tumors. It is probably due to the higher fiber
content of hard tumors. In addition, the vastly greater diagnostic performance
of combined models than any single histogram parameter indicates that combination
of various histogram parameters will help to comprehensively characterize the
microstructure of the tumor. Acknowledgements
Not applicable.References
1.
Kurokawa R,
Kurokawa M, Baba A, et al. Major Changes in 2021 World Health Organization
Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors. Radiographics.
2022;42(5):1474-1493.
2.
Yao A, Pain M,
Balchandani P, Shrivastava RK. Can MRI predict meningioma consistency?: a
correlation with tumor pathology and systematic review. Neurosurg Rev.
2018;41(3):745-753.
3.
Cao T, Jiang R,
Zheng L, et al. T1 and ADC histogram parameters may be an in vivo biomarker for
predicting the grade, subtype, and proliferative activity of meningioma. Eur
Radiol. 2022;10.1007/s00330-022-09026-5.
4.
Toh C H, Wei K
C, Chang C N, et al.Assessment of angiographic vascularity of meningiomas with
dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted imaging and
diffusion tensor imaging.[J].American Journal of Neuroradiology, 2014,
35(2):263-9.
5. van Griethuysen JJM, Fedorov A, Parmar C, et al. Computational radiomics
system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res. 2017;77:e104–e107.