BACKGROUND: Diffusion MRI, although having the potential to be a biomarker for early assessment of tumor response to therapy, could be confounded by edema and necrosis in or near the brain tumors. This study aimed to develop and investigate the ability of the diffusion abnormality index (DAI) to be a new imaging biomarker for early assessment of brain metastasis response to radiation therapy (RT). METHODS: Patients with either radiosensitive or radioresistant brain metastases that were treated by whole brain RT alone or combined with bortezomib as a radiation sensitizer had diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI pre-RT and 2 weeks (2W) after starting RT. A patient-specific diffusion abnormality probability function (DAProF) was created to account for abnormal low and high apparent diffusion coefficients differently, reflecting respective high cellularity and edema/necrosis. The DAI of a lesion was then calculated by the integral of DAProF-weighted tumor apparent diffusion coefficient histogram. The changes in DAI from pre-RT to 2W were evaluated for differentiating the responsive, stable, and progressive tumors and compared with the changes in gross tumor volume and conventional diffusion metrics during the same time interval. RESULTS: In lesions treated with whole brain RT, the DAI performed the best among all metrics in predicting the posttreatment response of brain metastases to RT. In lesions treated with whole brain RT + bortezomib, although DAI was the best predictor, the performance of all metrics worsened compared with the first group. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of DAI for early assessment of brain metastasis response to RT depends upon treatment regimes.
BACKGROUND: Diffusion MRI, although having the potential to be a biomarker for early assessment of tumor response to therapy, could be confounded by edema and necrosis in or near the brain tumors. This study aimed to develop and investigate the ability of the diffusion abnormality index (DAI) to be a new imaging biomarker for early assessment of brain metastasis response to radiation therapy (RT). METHODS:Patients with either radiosensitive or radioresistant brain metastases that were treated by whole brain RT alone or combined with bortezomib as a radiation sensitizer had diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI pre-RT and 2 weeks (2W) after starting RT. A patient-specific diffusion abnormality probability function (DAProF) was created to account for abnormal low and high apparent diffusion coefficients differently, reflecting respective high cellularity and edema/necrosis. The DAI of a lesion was then calculated by the integral of DAProF-weighted tumor apparent diffusion coefficient histogram. The changes in DAI from pre-RT to 2W were evaluated for differentiating the responsive, stable, and progressive tumors and compared with the changes in gross tumor volume and conventional diffusion metrics during the same time interval. RESULTS: In lesions treated with whole brain RT, the DAI performed the best among all metrics in predicting the posttreatment response of brain metastases to RT. In lesions treated with whole brain RT + bortezomib, although DAI was the best predictor, the performance of all metrics worsened compared with the first group. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of DAI for early assessment of brain metastasis response to RT depends upon treatment regimes.
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Hyun J Kim; Jing Huo; Jeffry Alger; Matthew S Brown; David Gjertson; Victor Sai; Jonathan R Young; Leena Tekchandani; Timothy Cloughesy; Paul S Mischel; Albert Lai; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Syed Rahmanuddin; Jonathan Goldin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Benjamin M Ellingson; Timothy F Cloughesy; Albert Lai; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Whitney B Pope Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Benjamin M Ellingson; Timothy F Cloughesy; Albert Lai; Paul S Mischel; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Shadi Lalezari; Kathleen M Schmainda; Whitney B Pope Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: W B Pope; A Lai; R Mehta; H J Kim; J Qiao; J R Young; X Xue; J Goldin; M S Brown; P L Nghiemphu; A Tran; T F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sungheon Kim; Laurie Loevner; Harry Quon; Eric Sherman; Gregory Weinstein; Alex Kilger; Harish Poptani Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ann D King; Kwok-Keung Chow; Kwok-Hung Yu; Frankie Kwok Fai Mo; David K W Yeung; Jing Yuan; Kunwar S Bhatia; Alexander C Vlantis; Anil T Ahuja Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Eric L Chang; Jeffrey S Wefel; Kenneth R Hess; Pamela K Allen; Frederick F Lang; David G Kornguth; Rebecca B Arbuckle; J Michael Swint; Almon S Shiu; Moshe H Maor; Christina A Meyers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-10-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Shannon Puhalla; William Elmquist; David Freyer; Lawrence Kleinberg; Chris Adkins; Paul Lockman; John McGregor; Leslie Muldoon; Gary Nesbit; David Peereboom; Quentin Smith; Sara Walker; Edward Neuwelt Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Martin Kocher; Garry Ceccon; Jan-Michael Werner; Anna Brunn; Martina Deckert; Whitney B Pope; Riccardo Soffietti; Emilie Le Rhun; Michael Weller; Jörg C Tonn; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Robert H Press; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; James M Mountz; Brenda F Kurland; Richard L Wahl; Ella F Jones; Nola M Hylton; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Robert J Nordstrom; Lori Henderson; Karen A Kurdziel; Bhadrasain Vikram; Michael A Jacobs; Matthias Holdhoff; Edward Taylor; David A Jaffray; Lawrence H Schwartz; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan; Hannah M Linden; Philippe Lambin; Thomas J Dilling; Daniel L Rubin; Lubomir Hadjiiski; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 7.038