Katherine A Zukotynski1, Sridhar Vajapeyam2,3, Frederic H Fahey2,3, Mehmet Kocak4,5, Douglas Brown2, Kelsey I Ricci6, Arzu Onar-Thomas5, Maryam Fouladi7, Tina Young Poussaint8,3. 1. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 2. Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee. 5. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee. 6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 7. Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio. 8. Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts tina.poussaint@childrens.harvard.edu.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe baseline 18F-FDG PET voxel characteristics in pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) and to correlate these metrics with baseline MRI apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram metrics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival. Methods: Baseline brain 18F-FDG PET and MRI scans were obtained in 33 children from Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium clinical DIPG trials. 18F-FDG PET images, postgadolinium MR images, and ADC MR images were registered to baseline fluid attenuation inversion recovery MR images. Three-dimensional regions of interest on fluid attenuation inversion recovery MR images and postgadolinium MR images and 18F-FDG PET and MR ADC histograms were generated. Metrics evaluated included peak number, skewness, and kurtosis. Correlation between PET and MR ADC histogram metrics was evaluated. PET pixel values within the region of interest for each tumor were plotted against MR ADC values. The association of these imaging markers with survival was described. Results: PET histograms were almost always unimodal (94%, vs. 6% bimodal). None of the PET histogram parameters (skewness or kurtosis) had a significant association with PFS, although a higher PET postgadolinium skewness tended toward a less favorable PFS (hazard ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-16.28 [P = 0.11]). There was a significant association between higher MR ADC postgadolinium skewness and shorter PFS (hazard ratio, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.11-5.91 [P = 0.028]), and there was the suggestion that this also led to shorter overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 0.95-5.04 [P = 0.067]). Higher MR ADC postgadolinium kurtosis tended toward shorter PFS (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.74 [P = 0.073]). PET and MR ADC pixel values were negatively correlated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Further, the level of PET and MR ADC correlation was significantly positively associated with PFS; tumors with higher values of ADC-PET correlation had more favorable PFS (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.89 [P = 0.036]), suggesting that a higher level of negative ADC-PET correlation leads to less favorable PFS. A more significant negative correlation may indicate higher-grade elements within the tumor leading to poorer outcomes. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET and MR ADC histogram metrics in pediatric DIPG demonstrate different characteristics with often a negative correlation between PET and MR ADC pixel values. A higher negative correlation is associated with a worse PFS, which may indicate higher-grade elements within the tumor.
The purpose of this study was to describe baseline 18F-FDG PET voxel characteristics in pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) and to correlate these metrics with baseline MRI apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram metrics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival. Methods: Baseline brain 18F-FDG PET and MRI scans were obtained in 33 children from Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium clinical DIPG trials. 18F-FDG PET images, postgadolinium MR images, and ADC MR images were registered to baseline fluid attenuation inversion recovery MR images. Three-dimensional regions of interest on fluid attenuation inversion recovery MR images and postgadolinium MR images and 18F-FDG PET and MR ADC histograms were generated. Metrics evaluated included peak number, skewness, and kurtosis. Correlation between PET and MR ADC histogram metrics was evaluated. PET pixel values within the region of interest for each tumor were plotted against MR ADC values. The association of these imaging markers with survival was described. Results: PET histograms were almost always unimodal (94%, vs. 6% bimodal). None of the PET histogram parameters (skewness or kurtosis) had a significant association with PFS, although a higher PET postgadolinium skewness tended toward a less favorable PFS (hazard ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-16.28 [P = 0.11]). There was a significant association between higher MR ADC postgadolinium skewness and shorter PFS (hazard ratio, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.11-5.91 [P = 0.028]), and there was the suggestion that this also led to shorter overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 0.95-5.04 [P = 0.067]). Higher MR ADC postgadolinium kurtosis tended toward shorter PFS (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.74 [P = 0.073]). PET and MR ADC pixel values were negatively correlated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Further, the level of PET and MR ADC correlation was significantly positively associated with PFS; tumors with higher values of ADC-PET correlation had more favorable PFS (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.89 [P = 0.036]), suggesting that a higher level of negative ADC-PET correlation leads to less favorable PFS. A more significant negative correlation may indicate higher-grade elements within the tumor leading to poorer outcomes. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET and MR ADC histogram metrics in pediatric DIPG demonstrate different characteristics with often a negative correlation between PET and MR ADC pixel values. A higher negative correlation is associated with a worse PFS, which may indicate higher-grade elements within the tumor.
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: M E Moseley; Y Cohen; J Kucharczyk; J Mintorovitch; H S Asgari; M F Wendland; J Tsuruda; D Norman Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert V Mulkern; Kelsey I Ricci; Sridhar Vajapeyam; Thomas L Chenevert; Dariya I Malyarenko; Mehmet Kocak; Tina Young Poussaint Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 3.173
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: Gethin Williams; Frederic H Fahey; S Ted Treves; Mehmet Kocak; Ian F Pollack; James M Boyett; Larry E Kun; Tina Young Poussaint Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-04-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: D Rodriguez Gutierrez; A Awwad; L Meijer; M Manita; T Jaspan; R A Dineen; R G Grundy; D P Auer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: T Young Poussaint; P C Phillips; S Vajapeyam; F H Fahey; R L Robertson; S Osganian; U Ramamurthy; R V Mulkern; S T Treves; J M Boyett; L E Kun Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Emilie A Steffen-Smith; Joelle E Sarlls; Carlo Pierpaoli; Joanna H Shih; Robyn S Bent; Lindsay Walker; Katherine E Warren Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: James L Leach; James Roebker; Austin Schafer; Joshua Baugh; Brooklyn Chaney; Christine Fuller; Maryam Fouladi; Adam Lane; Renee Doughman; Rachid Drissi; Mariko DeWire-Schottmiller; David S Ziegler; Jane E Minturn; Jordan R Hansford; Stacie S Wang; Michelle Monje-Deisseroth; Paul G Fisher; Nicholas G Gottardo; Hetal Dholaria; Roger Packer; Katherine Warren; Sarah E S Leary; Stewart Goldman; Ute Bartels; Cynthia Hawkins; Blaise V Jones Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: C Jaimes; S Vajapeyam; D Brown; P-C Kao; C Ma; L Greenspan; N Gupta; L Goumnerova; P Bandopahayay; F Dubois; N F Greenwald; T Zack; O Shapira; R Beroukhim; K L Ligon; S Chi; M W Kieran; K D Wright; T Y Poussaint Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Rafael Ceschin; Mehmet Kocak; Sridhar Vajapeyam; Ian F Pollack; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Ira J Dunkel; Tina Young Poussaint; Ashok Panigrahy Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Christopher L Tinkle; Elizabeth C Duncan; Mikhail Doubrovin; Yuanyuan Han; Yimei Li; Hyun Kim; Alberto Broniscer; Scott E Snyder; Thomas E Merchant; Barry L Shulkin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S Vajapeyam; D Brown; C Billups; Z Patay; G Vezina; M S Shiroishi; M Law; P Baxter; A Onar-Thomas; J R Fangusaro; I J Dunkel; T Y Poussaint Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 4.966