Kyle M Jones1, Edward A Randtke2, Eriko S Yoshimaru3, Christine M Howison2, Pavani Chalasani4, Robert R Klein5, Setsuko K Chambers3,6, Phillip H Kuo1,2,3, Mark D Pagel7,8,9. 1. Biomedical Engineering Graduate Interdisciplinary Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, University of Arizona, 1515 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson, AZ, 85724-5024, USA. 3. University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 7. Biomedical Engineering Graduate Interdisciplinary Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. mpagel@u.arizona.edu. 8. Department of Medical Imaging, University of Arizona, 1515 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson, AZ, 85724-5024, USA. mpagel@u.arizona.edu. 9. University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. mpagel@u.arizona.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We optimized acido-chemical exchange saturation transfer (acidoCEST) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a method that measures extracellular pH (pHe), and translated this method to the radiology clinic to evaluate tumor acidosis. PROCEDURES: A CEST-FISP MRI protocol was used to image a flank SKOV3 tumor model. Bloch fitting modified to include the direct estimation of pH was developed to generate parametric maps of tumor pHe in the SKOV3 tumor model, a patient with high-grade invasive ductal carcinoma, and a patient with metastatic ovarian cancer. The acidoCEST MRI results of the patient with metastatic ovarian cancer were compared with DCE MRI and histopathology. RESULTS: The pHe maps of a flank model showed pHe measurements between 6.4 and 7.4, which matched with the expected tumor pHe range from past acidoCEST MRI studies in flank tumors. In the patient with metastatic ovarian cancer, the average pHe value of three adjacent tumors was 6.58, and the most reliable pHe measurements were obtained from the right posterior tumor, which favorably compared with DCE MRI and histopathological results. The average pHe of the kidney showed an average pHe of 6.73 units. The patient with high-grade invasive ductal carcinoma failed to accumulate sufficient agent to generate pHe measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Optimized acidoCEST MRI generated pHe measurements in a flank tumor model and could be translated to the clinic to assess a patient with metastatic ovarian cancer.
PURPOSE: We optimized acido-chemical exchange saturation transfer (acidoCEST) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a method that measures extracellular pH (pHe), and translated this method to the radiology clinic to evaluate tumor acidosis. PROCEDURES: A CEST-FISP MRI protocol was used to image a flank SKOV3 tumor model. Bloch fitting modified to include the direct estimation of pH was developed to generate parametric maps of tumorpHe in the SKOV3tumor model, a patient with high-grade invasive ductal carcinoma, and a patient with metastatic ovarian cancer. The acidoCEST MRI results of the patient with metastatic ovarian cancer were compared with DCE MRI and histopathology. RESULTS: The pHe maps of a flank model showed pHe measurements between 6.4 and 7.4, which matched with the expected tumorpHe range from past acidoCEST MRI studies in flank tumors. In the patient with metastatic ovarian cancer, the average pHe value of three adjacent tumors was 6.58, and the most reliable pHe measurements were obtained from the right posterior tumor, which favorably compared with DCE MRI and histopathological results. The average pHe of the kidney showed an average pHe of 6.73 units. The patient with high-grade invasive ductal carcinoma failed to accumulate sufficient agent to generate pHe measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Optimized acidoCEST MRI generated pHe measurements in a flank tumor model and could be translated to the clinic to assess a patient with metastatic ovarian cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bloch fitting; CEST MRI; Cancer; Respiration gating; pH
Authors: Brianna F Moon; Kyle M Jones; Liu Qi Chen; Peilu Liu; Edward A Randtke; Christine M Howison; Mark D Pagel Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Kyle M Jones; Edward A Randtke; Christine M Howison; Julio Cárdenas-Rodríguez; Patricia J Sime; Matthew R Kottmann; Mark D Pagel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Vipul R Sheth; Yuguo Li; Liu Qi Chen; Christine M Howison; Chris A Flask; Mark D Pagel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Liu Qi Chen; Christine M Howison; Justin J Jeffery; Ian F Robey; Phillip H Kuo; Mark D Pagel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: George W J Harston; Yee Kai Tee; Nicholas Blockley; Thomas W Okell; Sivarajan Thandeswaran; Gabriel Shaya; Fintan Sheerin; Martino Cellerini; Stephen Payne; Peter Jezzard; Michael Chappell; James Kennedy Journal: Brain Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Kevin J Ray; Manon A Simard; James R Larkin; James Coates; Paul Kinchesh; Sean C Smart; Geoff S Higgins; Michael A Chappell; Nicola R Sibson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Hye-Young Heo; Zheng Han; Shanshan Jiang; Michael Schär; Peter C M van Zijl; Jinyuan Zhou Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jia Zhang; Yuguo Li; Stephanie Slania; Nirbhay N Yadav; Jing Liu; Rongfu Wang; Jianhua Zhang; Martin G Pomper; Peter C van Zijl; Xing Yang; Guanshu Liu Journal: Chemistry Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Leila R Lindeman; Edward A Randtke; Rachel A High; Kyle M Jones; Christine M Howison; Mark D Pagel Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 4.668