Pelin A Ciris1,2,3, Mukund Balasubramanian4,5, Antonio L Damato4,6, Ravi T Seethamraju7, Clare M Tempany-Afdhal4,8, Robert V Mulkern4,5, Akila N Viswanathan4,7. 1. Biomedical Engineering, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. pelin.aksit@gmail.com. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. pelin.aksit@gmail.com. 3. Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. pelin.aksit@gmail.com. 4. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Siemens Healthcare, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess whether R2* mapping with a standard Monoexponential (ME) or a Gaussian Augmentation of the Monoexponential (GAME) decay model better characterizes gradient-echo signal decays in gynecological cancers after external beam radiation therapy at 3T, and evaluate implications of modeling for noninvasive identification of intratumoral hypoxia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-gradient-echo signals were acquired on 25 consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers and three healthy participants during inhalation of different oxygen concentrations at 3T. Data were fitted with both ME and GAME models. Models were compared using F-tests in tumors and muscles in patients, muscles, cervix, and uterus in healthy participants, and across oxygenation levels. RESULTS: GAME significantly improved fitting over ME (P < 0.05): Improvements with GAME covered 34% of tumor regions-of-interest on average, ranging from 6% (of a vaginal tumor) to 68% (of a cervical tumor) in individual tumors. Improvements with GAME were more prominent in areas that would be assumed hypoxic based on ME alone, reaching 90% as ME R2* approached 100 Hz. Gradient echo decay parameters at different oxygenation levels were not significantly different (P = 0.81). CONCLUSION: R2* may prove sensitive to hypoxia; however, inaccurate representations of underlying data may limit the success of quantitative assessments. Although the degree to which R2 or σ values correlate with hypoxia remains unknown, improved characterization with GAME increases the potential for determining any correlates of fit parameters with biomarkers, such as oxygenation status. J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2016;44:1020-1030.
PURPOSE: To assess whether R2* mapping with a standard Monoexponential (ME) or a Gaussian Augmentation of the Monoexponential (GAME) decay model better characterizes gradient-echo signal decays in gynecological cancers after external beam radiation therapy at 3T, and evaluate implications of modeling for noninvasive identification of intratumoral hypoxia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-gradient-echo signals were acquired on 25 consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers and three healthy participants during inhalation of different oxygen concentrations at 3T. Data were fitted with both ME and GAME models. Models were compared using F-tests in tumors and muscles in patients, muscles, cervix, and uterus in healthy participants, and across oxygenation levels. RESULTS: GAME significantly improved fitting over ME (P < 0.05): Improvements with GAME covered 34% of tumor regions-of-interest on average, ranging from 6% (of a vaginal tumor) to 68% (of a cervical tumor) in individual tumors. Improvements with GAME were more prominent in areas that would be assumed hypoxic based on ME alone, reaching 90% as ME R2* approached 100 Hz. Gradient echo decay parameters at different oxygenation levels were not significantly different (P = 0.81). CONCLUSION: R2* may prove sensitive to hypoxia; however, inaccurate representations of underlying data may limit the success of quantitative assessments. Although the degree to which R2 or σ values correlate with hypoxia remains unknown, improved characterization with GAME increases the potential for determining any correlates of fit parameters with biomarkers, such as oxygenation status. J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2016;44:1020-1030.
Authors: Andreas Müller; Stefanie Remmele; Ingobert Wenningmann; Hans Clusmann; Frank Träber; Sebastian Flacke; Roy König; Jürgen Gieseke; Winfried A Willinek; Hans H Schild; Petra Mürtz Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Akila N Viswanathan; Jackie Szymonifka; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Desmond A O'Farrell; Robert A Cormack Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Caroline D Jordan; Manojkumar Saranathan; Neal K Bangerter; Brian A Hargreaves; Garry E Gold Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: M Höckel; C Knoop; K Schlenger; B Vorndran; E Baussmann; M Mitze; P G Knapstein; P Vaupel Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Akbar Alipour; Akila N Viswanathan; Ronald D Watkins; Hassan Elahi; Wolfgang Loew; Eric Meyer; Marc Morcos; Henry R Halperin; Ehud J Schmidt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 4.071