Carlos J Perez-Torres1, John A Engelbach1, Jeremy Cates2, Dinesh Thotala2, Liya Yuan3, Robert E Schmidt4, Keith M Rich5, Robert E Drzymala2, Joseph J H Ackerman6, Joel R Garbow7. 1. Department of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Department of Neuropathology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri; Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 6. Department of Chemistry, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri; Department of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri; Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 7. Department of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: garbow@wustl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accurate noninvasive diagnosis is vital for effective treatment planning. Presently, standard anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is incapable of differentiating recurring tumor from delayed radiation injury, as both lesions are hyperintense in both postcontrast T1- and T2-weighted images. Further studies are therefore necessary to identify an MRI paradigm that can differentially diagnose these pathologies. Mouse glioma and radiation injury models provide a powerful platform for this purpose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two MRI contrasts that are widely used in the clinic were chosen for application to a glioma/radiation-injury model: diffusion weighted imaging, from which the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is obtained, and magnetization transfer contrast, from which the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) is obtained. These metrics were evaluated longitudinally, first in each lesion type alone-glioma versus irradiation - and then in a combined irradiated glioma model. RESULTS: MTR was found to be consistently decreased in all lesions compared to nonlesion brain tissue (contralateral hemisphere), with limited specificity between lesion types. In contrast, ADC, though less sensitive to the presence of pathology, was increased in radiation injury and decreased in tumors. In the irradiated glioma model, ADC also increased immediately after irradiation, but decreased as the tumor regrew. CONCLUSIONS: ADC is a better metric than MTR for differentiating glioma from radiation injury. However, MTR was more sensitive to both tumor and radiation injury than ADC, suggesting a possible role in detecting lesions that do not enhance strongly on T1-weighted images.
PURPOSE: Accurate noninvasive diagnosis is vital for effective treatment planning. Presently, standard anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is incapable of differentiating recurring tumor from delayed radiation injury, as both lesions are hyperintense in both postcontrast T1- and T2-weighted images. Further studies are therefore necessary to identify an MRI paradigm that can differentially diagnose these pathologies. Mouseglioma and radiation injury models provide a powerful platform for this purpose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two MRI contrasts that are widely used in the clinic were chosen for application to a glioma/radiation-injury model: diffusion weighted imaging, from which the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is obtained, and magnetization transfer contrast, from which the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) is obtained. These metrics were evaluated longitudinally, first in each lesion type alone-glioma versus irradiation - and then in a combined irradiated glioma model. RESULTS: MTR was found to be consistently decreased in all lesions compared to nonlesion brain tissue (contralateral hemisphere), with limited specificity between lesion types. In contrast, ADC, though less sensitive to the presence of pathology, was increased in radiation injury and decreased in tumors. In the irradiated glioma model, ADC also increased immediately after irradiation, but decreased as the tumor regrew. CONCLUSIONS: ADC is a better metric than MTR for differentiating glioma from radiation injury. However, MTR was more sensitive to both tumor and radiation injury than ADC, suggesting a possible role in detecting lesions that do not enhance strongly on T1-weighted images.
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: K M Gauvain; R C McKinstry; P Mukherjee; A Perry; J J Neil; B A Kaufman; R J Hayashi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: R K Gupta; T F Cloughesy; U Sinha; J Garakian; J Lazareff; G Rubino; L Rubino; D P Becker; H V Vinters; J R Alger Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Yi Wang; Zongming E Chen; Vahid Yaghmai; Paul Nikolaidis; Robert J McCarthy; Laura Merrick; Frank H Miller Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: R Jain; J Narang; L Schultz; L Scarpace; S Saksena; S Brown; J P Rock; M Rosenblum; J Gutierrez; T Mikkelsen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Xiaoyu Jiang; Carlos J Perez-Torres; Dinesh Thotala; John A Engelbach; Liya Yuan; Jeremy Cates; Feng Gao; Robert E Drzymala; Keith M Rich; Robert E Schmidt; Joseph J H Ackerman; Dennis E Hallahan; Joel R Garbow Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Chong Duan; Carlos J Perez-Torres; Liya Yuan; John A Engelbach; Scott C Beeman; Christina I Tsien; Keith M Rich; Robert E Schmidt; Joseph J H Ackerman; Joel R Garbow Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Carlos J Perez-Torres; Liya Yuan; Robert E Schmidt; Keith M Rich; Robert E Drzymala; Dennis E Hallahan; Joseph J H Ackerman; Joel R Garbow Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Junzhong Xu; Ke Li; R Adam Smith; John C Waterton; Ping Zhao; Zhaohua Ding; Mark D Does; H Charles Manning; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-12-03 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Brad A Hartl; Htet S W Ma; Katherine S Hansen; Julian Perks; Michael S Kent; Ruben C Fragoso; Laura Marcu Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: Carlos J Perez-Torres; Liya Yuan; Robert E Schmidt; Keith M Rich; Joseph J H Ackerman; Joel R Garbow Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Xiaoyu Jiang; Liya Yuan; John A Engelbach; Jeremy Cates; Carlos J Perez-Torres; Feng Gao; Dinesh Thotala; Robert E Drzymala; Robert E Schmidt; Keith M Rich; Dennis E Hallahan; Joseph J H Ackerman; Joel R Garbow Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joel R Garbow; Tanner M Johanns; Xia Ge; John A Engelbach; Liya Yuan; Sonika Dahiya; Christina I Tsien; Feng Gao; Keith M Rich; Joseph J H Ackerman Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 6.244