Mu Zhou1, Lawrence Hall1, Dmitry Goldgof1, Robin Russo2, Yoganand Balagurunathan2, Robert Gillies2, Robert Gatenby3. 1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. 2. Departments of Radiology and Experimental Imaging, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL. 3. Departments of Radiology and Experimental Imaging, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL ; Cancer Biology and Evolution Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL.
Abstract
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations from 32 patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) enrolled in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Spatial variations in T1 post-gadolinium and either T2-weighted or fluid attenuated inversion recovery sequences from each tumor MRI study were used to characterize each small region of the tumor by its local contrast enhancement and edema/cellularity ("habitat"). The patient cohort was divided into group 1 (survival < 400 days, n = 16) and group 2 (survival > 400 days, n = 16). RESULTS: Histograms of relative values in each sequence demonstrated that the tumor regions were consistently divided into high and low blood contrast enhancement, each of which could be subdivided into regions of high, low, and intermediate cell density/interstitial edema. Group 1 tumors contained greater volumes of habitats with low contrast enhancement but intermediate and high cell density (not fully necrotic) than group 2. Both leave-one-out and 10-fold cross-validation schemes demonstrated that individual patients could be correctly assigned to the short or long survival group with 81.25% accuracy. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that novel image analytic techniques can characterize regional habitat variations in GBMs using combinations of MRI sequences. A preliminary study of 32 patients from the TCGA database found that the distribution of MRI-defined habitats varied significantly among the different survival groups. Radiologically defined ecological tumor analysis may provide valuable prognostic and predictive biomarkers in GBM and other tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations from 32 patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) enrolled in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Spatial variations in T1 post-gadolinium and either T2-weighted or fluid attenuated inversion recovery sequences from each tumor MRI study were used to characterize each small region of the tumor by its local contrast enhancement and edema/cellularity ("habitat"). The patient cohort was divided into group 1 (survival < 400 days, n = 16) and group 2 (survival > 400 days, n = 16). RESULTS: Histograms of relative values in each sequence demonstrated that the tumor regions were consistently divided into high and low blood contrast enhancement, each of which could be subdivided into regions of high, low, and intermediate cell density/interstitial edema. Group 1 tumors contained greater volumes of habitats with low contrast enhancement but intermediate and high cell density (not fully necrotic) than group 2. Both leave-one-out and 10-fold cross-validation schemes demonstrated that individual patients could be correctly assigned to the short or long survival group with 81.25% accuracy. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that novel image analytic techniques can characterize regional habitat variations in GBMs using combinations of MRI sequences. A preliminary study of 32 patients from the TCGA database found that the distribution of MRI-defined habitats varied significantly among the different survival groups. Radiologically defined ecological tumor analysis may provide valuable prognostic and predictive biomarkers in GBM and other tumors.
Authors: Mohak Shah; Yiming Xiao; Nagesh Subbanna; Simon Francis; Douglas L Arnold; D Louis Collins; Tal Arbel Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2010-12-25 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Viswam S Nair; Olivier Gevaert; Guido Davidzon; Sandy Napel; Edward E Graves; Chuong D Hoang; Joseph B Shrager; Andrew Quon; Daniel L Rubin; Sylvia K Plevritis Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Ramon F Barajas; Joanna J Phillips; Rupa Parvataneni; Annette Molinaro; Emma Essock-Burns; Gabriela Bourne; Andrew T Parsa; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Soonmee Cha; Susan M Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Maximilian Diehn; Christine Nardini; David S Wang; Susan McGovern; Mahesh Jayaraman; Yu Liang; Kenneth Aldape; Soonmee Cha; Michael D Kuo Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Pascal O Zinn; Bhanu Mahajan; Bhanu Majadan; Pratheesh Sathyan; Sanjay K Singh; Sadhan Majumder; Ferenc A Jolesz; Rivka R Colen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Molly Yancovitz; Adam Litterman; Joanne Yoon; Elise Ng; Richard L Shapiro; Russell S Berman; Anna C Pavlick; Farbod Darvishian; Paul Christos; Madhu Mazumdar; Iman Osman; David Polsky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Viola Walther; Crispin T Hiley; Darryl Shibata; Charles Swanton; Paul E Turner; Carlo C Maley Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Luke Macyszyn; Hamed Akbari; Jared M Pisapia; Xiao Da; Mark Attiah; Vadim Pigrish; Yingtao Bi; Sharmistha Pal; Ramana V Davuluri; Laura Roccograndi; Nadia Dahmane; Maria Martinez-Lage; George Biros; Ronald L Wolf; Michel Bilello; Donald M O'Rourke; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: E Sala; E Mema; Y Himoto; H Veeraraghavan; J D Brenton; A Snyder; B Weigelt; H A Vargas Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Youyi Zhang; Jeffrey S Morris; Shivali Narang Aerry; Arvind U K Rao; Veerabhadran Baladandayuthapani Journal: Ann Appl Stat Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 2.083