N Andres Parra1, Andrew A Maudsley2, Rakesh K Gupta3, Fazilat Ishkanian1, Kris Huang1, Gail R Walker4, Kyle Padgett5, Bhaswati Roy3, Joseph Panoff1, Arnold Markoe1, Radka Stoyanova6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 3. Department of Radiology & Imaging, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurgaon, Haryana, India. 4. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Core Resource, Sylvester Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida; Department of Radiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. Electronic address: RStoyanova@med.miami.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) are used almost exclusively in radiation therapy planning of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), despite their well-recognized limitations. MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) can identify biochemical patterns associated with normal brain and tumor, predominantly by observation of choline (Cho) and N-acetylaspartate (NAA) distributions. In this study, volumetric 3-dimensional MRSI was used to map these compounds over a wide region of the brain and to evaluate metabolite-defined treatment targets (metabolic tumor volumes [MTV]). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Volumetric MRSI with effective voxel size of ∼1.0 mL and standard clinical MR images were obtained from 19 GBM patients. Gross tumor volumes and edema were manually outlined, and clinical target volumes (CTVs) receiving 46 and 60 Gy were defined (CTV46 and CTV60, respectively). MTVCho and MTVNAA were constructed based on volumes with high Cho and low NAA relative to values estimated from normal-appearing tissue. RESULTS: The MRSI coverage of the brain was between 70% and 76%. The MTVNAA were almost entirely contained within the edema, and the correlation between the 2 volumes was significant (r=0.68, P=.001). In contrast, a considerable fraction of MTVCho was outside of the edema (median, 33%) and for some patients it was also outside of the CTV46 and CTV60. These untreated volumes were greater than 10% for 7 patients (37%) in the study, and on average more than one-third (34.3%) of the MTVCho for these patients were outside of CTV60. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential usefulness of whole-brain MRSI for radiation therapy planning of GBM and revealed that areas of metabolically active tumor are not covered by standard RT volumes. The described integration of MTV into the RT system will pave the way to future clinical trials investigating outcomes in patients treated based on metabolic information.
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) are used almost exclusively in radiation therapy planning of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), despite their well-recognized limitations. MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) can identify biochemical patterns associated with normal brain and tumor, predominantly by observation of choline (Cho) and N-acetylaspartate (NAA) distributions. In this study, volumetric 3-dimensional MRSI was used to map these compounds over a wide region of the brain and to evaluate metabolite-defined treatment targets (metabolic tumor volumes [MTV]). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Volumetric MRSI with effective voxel size of ∼1.0 mL and standard clinical MR images were obtained from 19 GBM patients. Gross tumor volumes and edema were manually outlined, and clinical target volumes (CTVs) receiving 46 and 60 Gy were defined (CTV46 and CTV60, respectively). MTVCho and MTVNAA were constructed based on volumes with high Cho and low NAA relative to values estimated from normal-appearing tissue. RESULTS: The MRSI coverage of the brain was between 70% and 76%. The MTVNAA were almost entirely contained within the edema, and the correlation between the 2 volumes was significant (r=0.68, P=.001). In contrast, a considerable fraction of MTVCho was outside of the edema (median, 33%) and for some patients it was also outside of the CTV46 and CTV60. These untreated volumes were greater than 10% for 7 patients (37%) in the study, and on average more than one-third (34.3%) of the MTVCho for these patients were outside of CTV60. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential usefulness of whole-brain MRSI for radiation therapy planning of GBM and revealed that areas of metabolically active tumor are not covered by standard RT volumes. The described integration of MTV into the RT system will pave the way to future clinical trials investigating outcomes in patients treated based on metabolic information.
Authors: Eric L Chang; Serap Akyurek; Tedde Avalos; Neal Rebueno; Chris Spicer; John Garcia; Robin Famiglietti; Pamela K Allen; K S Clifford Chao; Anita Mahajan; Shiao Y Woo; Moshe H Maor Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ilwoo Park; Gregory Tamai; Michael C Lee; Cynthia F Chuang; Susan M Chang; Mitchel S Berger; Sarah J Nelson; Andrea Pirzkall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ihab S Haddadin; Adeka McIntosh; Sina Meisamy; Curt Corum; Angela L Styczynski Snyder; Nathaniel J Powell; Michael T Nelson; Douglas Yee; Michael Garwood; Patrick J Bolan Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: S W Lee; B A Fraass; L H Marsh; K Herbort; S S Gebarski; M K Martel; E H Radany; A S Lichter; H M Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Antoinette A Chan; Aubrey Lau; Andrea Pirzkall; Susan M Chang; Lynn J Verhey; David Larson; Michael W McDermott; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Bhaswati Roy; Rakesh K Gupta; Andrew A Maudsley; Rishi Awasthi; Sulaiman Sheriff; Meng Gu; Nuzhat Husain; Sudipta Mohakud; Sanjay Behari; Chandra M Pandey; Ram K S Rathore; Daniel M Spielman; Jeffry R Alger Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-02-02 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Juan M García-Gómez; Jan Luts; Margarida Julià-Sapé; Patrick Krooshof; Salvador Tortajada; Javier Vicente Robledo; Willem Melssen; Elies Fuster-García; Iván Olier; Geert Postma; Daniel Monleón; Angel Moreno-Torres; Jesús Pujol; Ana-Paula Candiota; M Carmen Martínez-Bisbal; Johan Suykens; Lutgarde Buydens; Bernardo Celda; Sabine Van Huffel; Carles Arús; Montserrat Robles Journal: MAGMA Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Kourosh Jafari-Khouzani; Franziska Loebel; Wolfgang Bogner; Otto Rapalino; Gilberto R Gonzalez; Elizabeth Gerstner; Andrew S Chi; Tracy T Batchelor; Bruce R Rosen; Jan Unkelbach; Helen A Shih; Daniel P Cahill; Ovidiu C Andronesi Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-07-05 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