PURPOSE: To evaluate which common post-processing method applied to gradient-echo DSC-MRI data, acquired with a single gadolinium injection and low flip-angle, most accurately reflects microvascular histopathology for patients with de novo, treatment-naive glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two tissue samples were collected from 35 patients with treatment-naive GBM. Sample locations were co-registered to preoperative gradient-echo dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI acquired with 35° flip-angle and 0.1 mmol/kg gadolinium. Estimates of blood volume and leakiness at each sample location were calculated using four common postprocessing methods (leakage-corrected nonlinear gamma-variate, non-parametric, scaled MR-signal, and unscaled MR-signal). Tissue sample microvascular morphology was characterized using Factor VIII immunohistochemical analysis. A random-effects regression model, adjusted for repeated measures and contrast-enhancement (CE), identified whether MR parameter estimates significantly predicted IHC findings. RESULTS: Elevated blood volume estimates from nonlinear and non-parametric methods significantly predicted increased microvascular hyperplasia. Abnormal microvasculature existed beyond the CE-lesion and was significantly reflected by increased blood volume from nonlinear, non-parametric, and scaled MR-signal analysis. CONCLUSION: This study provides histopathological support for both non-parametric and nonlinear post-processing of low flip-angle DSC-MRI for characterizing microvascular hyperplasia within GBM. Non-parametric analysis with a single gadolinium injection may be a particularly useful strategy clinically, as it requires less computational expense and limits gadolinium exposure.
PURPOSE: To evaluate which common post-processing method applied to gradient-echo DSC-MRI data, acquired with a single gadolinium injection and low flip-angle, most accurately reflects microvascular histopathology for patients with de novo, treatment-naive glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two tissue samples were collected from 35 patients with treatment-naive GBM. Sample locations were co-registered to preoperative gradient-echo dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI acquired with 35° flip-angle and 0.1 mmol/kg gadolinium. Estimates of blood volume and leakiness at each sample location were calculated using four common postprocessing methods (leakage-corrected nonlinear gamma-variate, non-parametric, scaled MR-signal, and unscaled MR-signal). Tissue sample microvascular morphology was characterized using Factor VIII immunohistochemical analysis. A random-effects regression model, adjusted for repeated measures and contrast-enhancement (CE), identified whether MR parameter estimates significantly predicted IHC findings. RESULTS: Elevated blood volume estimates from nonlinear and non-parametric methods significantly predicted increased microvascular hyperplasia. Abnormal microvasculature existed beyond the CE-lesion and was significantly reflected by increased blood volume from nonlinear, non-parametric, and scaled MR-signal analysis. CONCLUSION: This study provides histopathological support for both non-parametric and nonlinear post-processing of low flip-angle DSC-MRI for characterizing microvascular hyperplasia within GBM. Non-parametric analysis with a single gadolinium injection may be a particularly useful strategy clinically, as it requires less computational expense and limits gadolinium exposure.
Authors: H Uematsu; M Maeda; N Sadato; T Matsuda; Y Ishimori; Y Koshimoto; H Kimura; H Yamada; Y Kawamura; Y Yonekura; H Itoh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2001 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Meng Law; Daniel E Meltzer; Stephan G Wetzel; Stanley Yang; Edmond A Knopp; John Golfinos; Glyn Johnson Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Soonmee Cha; Tarik Tihan; Forrest Crawford; Nancy J Fischbein; Susan Chang; Andrew Bollen; Sarah J Nelson; Michael Prados; Mitchel S Berger; William P Dillon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M A Prah; S M Stufflebeam; E S Paulson; J Kalpathy-Cramer; E R Gerstner; T T Batchelor; D P Barboriak; B R Rosen; K M Schmainda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Matthew L White; Yan Zhang; Fang Yu; Nicole Shonka; Michele R Aizenberg; Pavani Adapa; Syed A Jaffar Kazmi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: James T Grist; Stephanie Withey; Christopher Bennett; Heather E L Rose; Lesley MacPherson; Adam Oates; Stephen Powell; Jan Novak; Laurence Abernethy; Barry Pizer; Simon Bailey; Steven C Clifford; Dipayan Mitra; Theodoros N Arvanitis; Dorothee P Auer; Shivaram Avula; Richard Grundy; Andrew C Peet Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Adam Autry; Joanna J Phillips; Stojan Maleschlijski; Ritu Roy; Annette M Molinaro; Susan M Chang; Soonmee Cha; Janine M Lupo; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 4.803