S J Mills1, C Soh, C J Rose, S Cheung, S Zhao, G J M Parker, A Jackson. 1. Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering Department, School of Cancer and Imaging Sciences, University of Manchester, Withington, Manchester, United Kingdom. samantha.mills@manchester.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: ADC measurements have been shown to have an inverse relationship with tumor cell density. DCE-MR imaging modeling techniques can produce a measurement of the v(e), which would also be expected to have an inverse relationship with cell density. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that areas of increased cellularity, and therefore low ADC, would be expected to have a small EES (low v(e)). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with GBM were recruited. All imaging was performed before surgery on a 3T MR imaging scanner. Imaging included diffusion tensor imaging, T1-weighted DCE-MR imaging, and anatomic sequences. Tumor VOIs were defined on the anatomic images and modified to contain only enhancing voxels. Parametric maps of ADC and v(e) were generated. Statistical analysis of ADC and v(e) was performed on both a voxel-by-voxel basis and comparison of median values. RESULTS: No correlation was demonstrated between ADC and v(e) in either a voxel-by-voxel analysis or comparison of median values (P = .124). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate a correlation between ADC and v(e). This is important because it suggests that though the mechanisms underlying these parameters are theoretically similar, they actually reflect different aspects of tumor microenvironment. Consequently ADC and v(e) should be considered to provide independent information about the properties of the EES.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: ADC measurements have been shown to have an inverse relationship with tumor cell density. DCE-MR imaging modeling techniques can produce a measurement of the v(e), which would also be expected to have an inverse relationship with cell density. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that areas of increased cellularity, and therefore low ADC, would be expected to have a small EES (low v(e)). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with GBM were recruited. All imaging was performed before surgery on a 3T MR imaging scanner. Imaging included diffusion tensor imaging, T1-weighted DCE-MR imaging, and anatomic sequences. Tumor VOIs were defined on the anatomic images and modified to contain only enhancing voxels. Parametric maps of ADC and v(e) were generated. Statistical analysis of ADC and v(e) was performed on both a voxel-by-voxel basis and comparison of median values. RESULTS: No correlation was demonstrated between ADC and v(e) in either a voxel-by-voxel analysis or comparison of median values (P = .124). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate a correlation between ADC and v(e). This is important because it suggests that though the mechanisms underlying these parameters are theoretically similar, they actually reflect different aspects of tumor microenvironment. Consequently ADC and v(e) should be considered to provide independent information about the properties of the EES.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; T Hirai; T Okuda; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Komohara; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: T L Chenevert; L D Stegman; J M Taylor; P L Robertson; H S Greenberg; A Rehemtulla; B D Ross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J A Brunberg; T L Chenevert; P E McKeever; D A Ross; L R Junck; K M Muraszko; R Dauser; J G Pipe; A T Betley Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Tobias Penzkofer; Kyung Won Kim; Michelle S Hirsch; Mark G Vangel; Paul Masry; Trevor A Flood; Ming-Ching Chang; Clare M Tempany; Robert V Mulkern; Sandeep N Gupta Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Kyrre E Emblem; Ovidiu Andronesi; Bruce Rosen Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Lori R Arlinghaus; Xia Li; A Ridwan Rahman; E Brian Welch; Lei Xu; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: S Rose; M Fay; P Thomas; P Bourgeat; N Dowson; O Salvado; Y Gal; A Coulthard; S Crozier Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Stephanie L Barnes; Anna G Sorace; Mary E Loveless; Jennifer G Whisenant; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 4.044