A P Krishnan1, R Karunamuni2, K M Leyden1, T M Seibert1,2, R L Delfanti3, J M Kuperman3, H Bartsch1,3, P Elbe1, A Srikant1, A M Dale1,3,4, S Kesari5, D E Piccioni4, J A Hattangadi-Gluth2, N Farid1,3, C R McDonald1,2,6, N S White7,3. 1. From the Multimodal Imaging Laboratory (A.P.K., K.M.L., T.M.S., J.M.K., H.B., P.E., A.S., A.M.D., N.F., C.R.M., N.S.W.). 2. Departments of Radiation Medicine (R.K., T.M.S., J.A.H.-G., C.R.M.). 3. Radiology (R.L.D., J.M.K., H.B., A.M.D., N.F., N.S.W.). 4. Neurosciences (A.M.D., D.E.P.). 5. Department of Translational Neuro-Oncology and Neurotherapeutics (S.K.), John Wayne Cancer Institute and Pacific Neuroscience Institute at Providence Saint John's Health Center, Santa Monica, California. 6. Psychiatry (C.R.M.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 7. From the Multimodal Imaging Laboratory (A.P.K., K.M.L., T.M.S., J.M.K., H.B., P.E., A.S., A.M.D., N.F., C.R.M., N.S.W.) nswhite@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: ADC as a marker of tumor cellularity has been promising for evaluating the response to therapy in patients with glioblastoma but does not successfully stratify patients according to outcomes, especially in the upfront setting. Here we investigate whether restriction spectrum imaging, an advanced diffusion imaging model, performed after an operation but before radiation therapy, could improve risk stratification in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma relative to ADC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre-radiation therapy diffusion-weighted and structural imaging of 40 patients with glioblastoma were examined retrospectively. Restriction spectrum imaging and ADC-based hypercellularity volume fraction (restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR volume fraction, restriction spectrum imaging-contrast-enhanced volume fraction, ADC-FLAIR volume fraction, ADC-contrast-enhanced volume fraction) and intensities (restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR 90th percentile, restriction spectrum imaging-contrast-enhanced 90th percentile, ADC-FLAIR 10th percentile, ADC-contrast-enhanced 10th percentile) within the contrast-enhanced and FLAIR hyperintensity VOIs were calculated. The association of diffusion imaging metrics, contrast-enhanced volume, and FLAIR hyperintensity volume with progression-free survival and overall survival was evaluated by using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among the diffusion metrics, restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR volume fraction was the strongest prognostic metric of progression-free survival (P = .036) and overall survival (P = .007) in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, with higher values indicating earlier progression and shorter survival. Restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR 90th percentile was also associated with overall survival (P = .043), with higher intensities, indicating shorter survival. None of the ADC metrics were associated with progression-free survival/overall survival. Contrast-enhanced volume exhibited a trend toward significance for overall survival (P = .063). CONCLUSIONS: Restriction spectrum imaging-derived cellularity in FLAIR hyperintensity regions may be a more robust prognostic marker than ADC and conventional imaging for early progression and poorer survival in patients with glioblastoma. However, future studies with larger samples are needed to explore its predictive ability.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:ADC as a marker of tumor cellularity has been promising for evaluating the response to therapy in patients with glioblastoma but does not successfully stratify patients according to outcomes, especially in the upfront setting. Here we investigate whether restriction spectrum imaging, an advanced diffusion imaging model, performed after an operation but before radiation therapy, could improve risk stratification in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma relative to ADC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre-radiation therapy diffusion-weighted and structural imaging of 40 patients with glioblastoma were examined retrospectively. Restriction spectrum imaging and ADC-based hypercellularity volume fraction (restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR volume fraction, restriction spectrum imaging-contrast-enhanced volume fraction, ADC-FLAIR volume fraction, ADC-contrast-enhanced volume fraction) and intensities (restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR 90th percentile, restriction spectrum imaging-contrast-enhanced 90th percentile, ADC-FLAIR 10th percentile, ADC-contrast-enhanced 10th percentile) within the contrast-enhanced and FLAIR hyperintensity VOIs were calculated. The association of diffusion imaging metrics, contrast-enhanced volume, and FLAIR hyperintensity volume with progression-free survival and overall survival was evaluated by using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among the diffusion metrics, restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR volume fraction was the strongest prognostic metric of progression-free survival (P = .036) and overall survival (P = .007) in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, with higher values indicating earlier progression and shorter survival. Restriction spectrum imaging-FLAIR 90th percentile was also associated with overall survival (P = .043), with higher intensities, indicating shorter survival. None of the ADC metrics were associated with progression-free survival/overall survival. Contrast-enhanced volume exhibited a trend toward significance for overall survival (P = .063). CONCLUSIONS: Restriction spectrum imaging-derived cellularity in FLAIR hyperintensity regions may be a more robust prognostic marker than ADC and conventional imaging for early progression and poorer survival in patients with glioblastoma. However, future studies with larger samples are needed to explore its predictive ability.
Authors: R V Mulkern; H Gudbjartsson; C F Westin; H P Zengingonul; W Gartner; C R Guttmann; R L Robertson; W Kyriakos; R Schwartz; D Holtzman; F A Jolesz; S E Maier Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Hyun J Kim; Jing Huo; Jeffry Alger; Matthew S Brown; David Gjertson; Victor Sai; Jonathan R Young; Leena Tekchandani; Timothy Cloughesy; Paul S Mischel; Albert Lai; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Syed Rahmanuddin; Jonathan Goldin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carrie R McDonald; Rachel L Delfanti; Anitha P Krishnan; Kelly M Leyden; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth; Tyler M Seibert; Roshan Karunamuni; Pia Elbe; Joshua M Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; David E Piccioni; Nathan S White; Anders M Dale; Nikdokht Farid Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: K C McCammack; C J Kane; J K Parsons; N S White; N M Schenker-Ahmed; J M Kuperman; H Bartsch; R S Desikan; R A Rakow-Penner; D Adams; M A Liss; R F Mattrey; W G Bradley; D J A Margolis; S S Raman; A Shabaik; A M Dale; D S Karow Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Nathan S White; Trygve B Leergaard; Helen D'Arceuil; Jan G Bjaalie; Anders M Dale Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Yan Li; Janine M Lupo; Mei-Yin Polley; Jason C Crane; Wei Bian; Soonmee Cha; Susan Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: W B Pope; A Lai; R Mehta; H J Kim; J Qiao; J R Young; X Xue; J Goldin; M S Brown; P L Nghiemphu; A Tran; T F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B M Ellingson; S Sahebjam; H J Kim; W B Pope; R J Harris; D C Woodworth; A Lai; P L Nghiemphu; W P Mason; T F Cloughesy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Forrest W Crawford; Inas S Khayal; Colleen McGue; Suja Saraswathy; Andrea Pirzkall; Soonmee Cha; Kathleen R Lamborn; Susan M Chang; Mitchel S Berger; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 4.130