| Literature DB >> 29097933 |
Junfeng Zhang1, Heng Liu1,2, Haipeng Tong1, Sumei Wang3, Yizeng Yang4, Gang Liu2, Weiguo Zhang1,5.
Abstract
Gliomas possess complex and heterogeneous vasculatures with abnormal hemodynamics. Despite considerable advances in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques for improving tumor management and patient care in recent years, the prognosis of malignant gliomas remains dismal. Perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging techniques that could noninvasively provide superior information on vascular functionality have attracted much attention for evaluating brain tumors. However, nonconsensus imaging protocols and postprocessing analysis among different institutions impede their integration into standard-of-care imaging in clinic. And there have been very few studies providing a comprehensive evidence-based and systematic summary. This review first outlines the status of glioma theranostics and tumor-associated vascular pathology and then presents an overview of the principles of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast-MRI (DSC-MRI), with emphasis on their recent clinical applications in gliomas including tumor grading, identification of molecular characteristics, differentiation of glioma from other brain tumors, treatment response assessment, and predicting prognosis. Current challenges and future perspectives are also highlighted.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29097933 PMCID: PMC5612612 DOI: 10.1155/2017/7064120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Figure 1The versatile clinical applications of contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI techniques in gliomas.
Figure 2An illustration of parameters derived from DCE-MRI and DSC-MRI. (a) Semiquantitative parameters from signal intensity curve in DCE-MRI. (b) Schematic diagram of ETK model from DCE-MRI. (c) Calculation of PSR and PH from DSC-MRI. (d) Contrast concentration-time course curve of DSC-MRI. CBV is proportional to determined area under contrast concentration-time course curve (blue shaded area), and CBF is easily calculated given the relationship of MTT and CBV.
Main perfusion parameters derived from DCE-MRI and DSC-MRI.
| Parameters | Full name | Definition and meaning |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| Volume transfer constant between blood plasma and EES | It describes the leakage rate of GBCAs from the blood plasma towards EES |
|
| Extravascular extracellular volume fraction | Quantification of cellularity and necrosis in EES. |
|
| Blood plasma volume | Quantification of the volume of blood plasma |
|
| Transfer constant from EES into blood plasma | It is determined by the equation |
|
| ||
| CBV | Cerebral blood volume | The blood volume in a given region of brain tissue (unit, mL/100 g). It is calculated by integrating the area under the CC-TCC |
| CBF | Cerebral blood flow | The blood volume passing through a given region of brain tissue per unit of time (unit, mL/min/100 g) |
| MTT | Mean transit time | The average time in which blood passes through a given region of brain tissue (unit, s). It is estimated from the CC-TCC as width of the curve at half maximum height |
| PH | Peak height | The maximal drop of signal intensity from precontrast baseline during the first-pass bolus phase of GBCAs. It is correlated with CBV and reflects total blood volume |
| PSR | Percentage of signal intensity recovery | It reflects capillary permeability indirectly, providing information like |
| rCBV | Relative cerebral blood volume | Measurement of the relative lesion blood volume compared with that of contralateral white matter. It is proportional to the area under the CC-TCC, providing an estimate of MVD and angiogenesis |
| rCBF | Relative cerebral blood flow | Measurement of the relative lesion blood flow compared with that of contralateral white matter |
|
| Leakage coefficient | Quantification of the degree of vascular permeability using algorithm method for leakage effect correction |
Examples of perfusion MRI for glioma grading.
| Study (year) (ref) | Group ( | Average age (years) | Imaging modality (method or model; parameter analysis) | Indexes | Results | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maia et al. (2005) [ | Grade II (13) | 36 | DSC-MRI (leakage effect uncorrected; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | Positive correlation between rCBV and tumor grade and VEGF expression | Impact of leakage effect on rCBV accuracy; small sample size |
|
| ||||||
| Boxerman et al. (2006) [ | Grade II (11) | 52 | DSC-MRI (algorithm for leakage correction; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | Significant correlation between tumor grade and corrected rCBV | rCBV threshold to discriminate tumor grade was not provided |
|
| ||||||
| Law et al. (2007) [ | Grade II (31) | 43 | DSC-MRI ( | rCBV | Positive correlation between all parameters and tumor grade; more specific than rCBVmax using histogram analysis | Histogram was based on whole tumor ROI probably including normal brain tissues |
|
| ||||||
| Emblem et al. (2008) [ | LGG (24) | 52 | DSC-MRI ( | rCBV | Increased diagnosis accuracy and interobserver agreement were obtained using histogram method | Only the peak height of histogram distribution was measured |
|
| ||||||
| Server et al. (2011) [ | Grade II (18) | 57 | DSC-MRI (algorithm for leakage correction; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | All parameters were correlated with tumor grade; the diagnostic power of rCBV was better than | Influence of steroid treatment on correlation between |
|
| ||||||
| Yoon et al. (2014) [ | LGG (12) | 50 | DSC-MRI ( | rCBV | Significant difference of rCBV between HGG and LGG | Subjectivity and neglect of the heterogeneity using ROI-based analysis |
|
| ||||||
| Aprile et al. (2015) [ | HGG (31) | 55 | DSC-MRI (preload for leakage correction; ROI-based analysis) | PSR | Both the two parameters were significantly different between LGG and HGG; PSR was better than rCBV for grading | The relative small sample number of grade III glioma |
|
| ||||||
| Smitha et al. (2015) [ | HGG (25) | 38 | DSC-MRI (leakage effect uncorrected; ROI-based analysis) | rPSR | Positive correlation between all parameters and tumor grade; the diagnosis performance of rPSR was better than rCBV and rCBF | Impact of leakage effect on rCBV accuracy |
|
| ||||||
| Choi et al. (2013) [ | LGG (10) | 51 | DCE-MRI (ETK model; ROI-based analysis), DWI |
| Significant difference in | Small sample size |
|
| ||||||
| Zhao et al. (2015) [ | LGG (9) | 46 | DCE-MRI (TK model; ROI-based analysis), DWI |
| Significant difference of all parameters between LGG and HGG; | Small sample size; lack of correlation between histopathology and imaging biomarkers |
|
| ||||||
| Jung et al. (2014) [ | Grade II (7) | 49 | DCE-MRI (ETK model; histogram analysis) |
| Positive correlation between all parameters and tumor grade | Small sample size of LGG; lack the percentile of parameters ranging from 0 to 50 |
|
| ||||||
| Li et al. (2015) [ | Grade II (15) | 42 | DCE-MRI (TK model; ROI-based analysis), SWI |
| All parameters could distinguish tumor grade except for grade III and grade IV | Small sample size; lack of voxel-to-voxel correlation between imaging features and pathological specimens |
|
| ||||||
| Nguyen et al. (2015) [ | Grade II (9) | 57 | DCE-MRI (ETK model, phase-derived AIF; ROI-based analysis), DSC-MRI (bookend method; ROI-based analysis) |
| Significant difference between all parameters and tumor grade; improved diagnostic power of parameters using phase-derived AIF method | Only 2 flip angles were used for estimation of the precontrast T1 map; sampling error of histopathological biopsy; some patients received steroids before imaging |
|
| ||||||
| Santarosa et al. (2016) [ | Grade II (9) | 55 | DCE-MRI (ETK model; histogram/ROI-based analysis), DSC-MRI (algorithm for leakage correction; histogram/ROI-based analysis) |
| Significant difference of all parameters between HGG and LGG; histogram analysis is better than ROI-based method | Small sample size |
Examples of perfusion MRI for identifying molecular characterization.
| Study (year) (ref) | Group ( | Average age (year) | Imaging modality (method or model; parameter analysis) | Indexes | Results | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kickingereder et al. (2015) [ | Grades II and III: | 49 | DSC-MRI (algorithm for leakage correction; histogram analysis) | rCBV | rCBV was significantly different between IDH mutation and wild-type tumors | Only including grades II and III tumors |
|
| ||||||
| Lee et al. (2015) [ | HGG: | 50 | DSC-MRI (algorithm for leakage correction; histogram analysis) | nCBV | Significant difference of nCBV between IDH mutation and wildtype; higher heterogeneity in mutation tumor than the wild-type | Not including LGG. Not excluding influence of MGMT mutation |
|
| ||||||
| Tykocinski et al. (2012) [ | GBM: | 61 | DSC-MRI (preload for leakage correction; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | Strong correlation between rCBV and EGFRvIII status | Relative small sample size of EGFRvIII-positive tumors |
|
| ||||||
| Gupta et al. (2015) [ | GBM: | 66 | DSC-MRI ( | PSR | Higher rCBV and lower PSR were associated with EGFRam; higher rPH was related to EGFRvIII mutation | Pathologic sampling may not be consistent with ROI selection |
|
| ||||||
| Arevalo-Perez et al. (2015) [ | GBM: | 66 | DCE-MRI (ETK model; histogram analysis) |
| Strong correlation between both parameters and EGFRvIII status; | Not eliminating influence of other molecular mutations |
|
| ||||||
| Jung et al. (2013) [ | GBM: | 52 | DSC-MRI ( | nCBV | nCBV was higher in MGMT-negative tumors than in MGMT-positive tumors | Small sample size |
|
| ||||||
| Moon et al. (2012) [ | HGG: | 51 | DSC-MRI (leakage effect uncorrected; ROI-based analysis) DTI | rCBV | No significant correlation between rCBV and MGMT | Small sample size; impact leakage effect of rCBV accuracy |
|
| ||||||
| Ahn et al. (2014) [ | GBM: | 58 | DCE-MRI (TK model; ROI-based analysis); DTI |
| Only | Subjectivity of ROI-based method |
|
| ||||||
| Jenkinson et al. (2006) [ | Grades II and III: | 44 | DSC-MRI (leakage effect uncorrected; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | rCBV was associated with 1p/19q codeletion in oligodendroglioma | Subjectivity of ROI-based method; impact leakage effect of rCBV accuracy |
|
| ||||||
| Emblem et al. (2008) [ | Grades II and III: | 52 | DSC-MRI (algorithm for leakage correction; histogram analysis) | rCBV | Histogram analysis of rCBV could differentiate 1p/19q genotype in astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors | Small sample size; only the peak height of histogram distribution was assessed |
Figure 3DSC-MRI for identification of IDH mutation status in GBM. Six sets of representative FLAIR and corresponding rCBV images from IDH1/2 mutant and wild-type GBM. Histogram analysis demonstrates that IDH1/2 mutant tumors have substantially lower rCBV value than the wild-type. Reproduce with permission from Kickingereder et al. [60].
Differential diagnosis in glioma, metastasis, and PCNSL.
| Study (year) (ref) | Tumor type ( | Average age (year) | Imaging modality (method or model; parameter analysis) | Indexes | Results | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law et al. (2002) [ | HGG (24) | 52 | DSC-MRI (leakage effect uncorrected; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | rCBV in peritumoral region was significantly different between HGG and MET | The peritumoral region was not defined clearly; the threshold value was not provided |
|
| ||||||
| Cha et al. (2007) [ | GBM (27) | 52 | DSC-MRI (alteration of | PSR | Significant difference of all parameters between GBM and MET; PSR was the most powerful with 100% specificity | Small sample size; some cases were not confirmed by histopathology |
|
| ||||||
| Mangla et al. (2011) [ | GBM (22) | 54 | DSC-MRI (preload for leakage correction; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | PSR was better than rCBV for differentiation | Small sample size; impact of steroid treatment on parameter evaluation |
|
| ||||||
| Toh et al. (2013) [ | GBM (20) | 60 | DSC-MRI (algorithm for leakage correction; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | Uncorrected rCBV is much better for differentiating | Lack of direct correlation between parameters and histopathologic features |
|
| ||||||
| Xing et al. (2014) [ | HGG (26) | 51 | DSC-MRI (leakage effect uncorrected; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | The combination of rCBV with PSR might help in more accurate differentiation | Impact of leakage effect on parameter measurements |
|
| ||||||
| Kickingereder et al. (2014) [ | GBM (60) | N/A | DCE-MRI (TK model; ROI-based analysis) |
|
| Relative small sample size of PCNSL |
|
| ||||||
| Kickingereder et al. (2014) [ | GBM (28) | 66 | DSC-MRI (preload for leakage correction; ROI-based analysis), DWI, SWI | rCBV | Multiparametric MRI allowed differentiation of GBM from PCNSL | Small sample size |
|
| ||||||
| Zhao et al. (2015) [ | LGG (9) | 46 | DCE-MRI (TK model; ROI-based analysis) |
| All parameters were significantly different between LGG, HGG, and MET. IAUC had the most diagnostic power | Small sample size; subjectivity of ROI selection |
|
| ||||||
| Jung et al. (2016) [ | GBM (26) | N/A | DCE-MRI (ETK model, ROI-based analysis) |
| Semiquantitative parameters could differentiate between GBM and hypovascular metastasis | Subjectivity of ROI selection |
Figure 4DSC-MRI (a) and DCE-MRI (b) for differentiation of GBM, PCNSL, and metastasis. rCBV maps demonstrate different characteristic features in the three distinct entities, with significantly higher rCBV value of GBM compared with metastasis and PCNSL. The Ktrans value of GBM is significantly lower than metastasis and PCNSL. Reproduce with permission from Mangla et al. [118], Xing et al. [120], Zhao et al. [52], and Kickingereder et al. [121].
Differentiation of pseudoprogression from true progression.
| Study (year) (ref) | Group ( | Average age (year) | Imaging modality (method or model; parameter analysis) | Indexes | Threshold (Sp%, Sn%) | limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mangla et al. (2010) [ | PsP (7) | 61 | DSC-MRI (algorithm for leakage effect correction; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | Percentage change in rCBV for discrimination of PsP and TP (85.7%, 76.9%) | Retrospective; different treatment management; small sample size |
|
| ||||||
| Martínez-Martínez and Martínez-Bosch (2014) [ | PsP (17) | 48 | DSR-MRI (leakage effect uncorrected; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | rPH = 1.37 (82.2%, 88%) | Retrospective; small sample size; impact of corticoid therapy on parameter evaluation; lack of histological confirmation |
|
| ||||||
| Prager et al. (2015) [ | PsP (8) | 55 | DSC-MRI ( | rCBVlesion | rCBVlesion = 1.07 (75%, 100%) | Retrospective; small sample size of PsP; MGMT in some patients may affect the perfusion parameters |
|
| ||||||
| Baek et al. (2012) [ | PsP (37) | 49 | DSC-MRI ( | nCBV | Percent change of skewness: 1.27% (79.2%, 85.7%) | Different therapies in patients; results were obtained from only one observer |
|
| ||||||
| Tsien et al. (2010) [ | PsP (13) | 52 | DSC-MRI (leakage effect uncorrected, parametric response map) | rCBV | Not provided; patients with progressive had reduced rCBV | Leakage effect may underestimate rCBV value |
|
| ||||||
| Gahramanov et al. (2013) [ | PsP (9) | N/A | DSC-MRI (ferumoxytol for leakage correction) | rCBV | rCBV = 1.5 (Sp%, Sn% not provided) | Lack of histopathologic confirmation; small sample size |
|
| ||||||
| Suh et al. (2013) [ | PsP (36) | 50 | DCE-MRI (nonmodel fitting; histogram analysis) | AUCR | mAUCRH = 0.31 (82.9%, 90.1%) | Lack of correlation between imaging measurements and specimen histology |
|
| ||||||
| Yun et al. (2015) [ | PsP (16) | 55 | DCE-MRI (ETK model; histogram analysis) |
|
| Small relative sample size; lack of histological confirmation |
Figure 5Discrimination of PsP from PD using DSC-MRI and DCE-MRI. (a) Contrast-enhanced T1WI of GBM treated with temozolomide demonstrates increased contrast enhancement suspicious for both PsP (top row) and PD (bottom row). Corresponding rCBV maps show low perfusion in PsP and high perfusion in PD; (b) Ktrans maps demonstrate decreased Ktrans value in PsP (top row) compared with PD (bottom row). Reproduce with permission from Shin et al. [158] and Thomas et al. [161].
Discrimination of recurrent glioma from radiation necrosis.
| Study (year) (ref) | Group ( | Average age (year) | Imaging modality (method or model; parameter analysis) | Indexes | Threshold (Sp%, Sn%) | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barajas et al. (2009) [ | RN (17) | 54 | DSC-MRI (alteration of | rCBV | rPH = 1.38 (81.38%, 89.32%) | Impact of partial volume averaging effect on parameter evaluation |
|
| ||||||
| Hu et al. (2009) [ | rHGG (24) | 47 | DSC-MRI (baseline subtraction method for leakage correction; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | rCBV = 0.71 (100%, 91.7%) | Various tumor types; inconsistent radiation dose and different therapies |
|
| ||||||
| Bisdas et al. (2011) [ | rHGG (12) | N/A | DCE-MRI (TK model; ROI-based analysis) |
|
| Small sample size; lack of histopathologic confirmation in some cases |
|
| ||||||
| Shin et al. (2014) [ | Recurrent glioma (19) | 55 | DCE-MRI (TK model; ROI-based analysis), DSC-MRI (preload for leakage corrected; ROI-based analysis) | r | rCBV = 2.33 (70%, 72.2%) | Relative small sample size; ROI-based method was not comprehensive |
|
| ||||||
| Larsen et al. (2013) [ | Recurrent glioma (11) | 56 | DCE-MRI (deconvolution technique) | CBV | CBV = 2.0 ml/100 g (100%, 100%) | Small sample size; sample bias in histological analysis; various tumor types |
|
| ||||||
| Masch et al. (2016) [ | Recurrent glioma (16) | 51 | DSC-MRI (preload for leakage correction; ROI-based analysis) | rCBV | Not provided; elevated rCBV in recurrent lesion compared with RN | Various tumor types; lack of histological confirmation in some cases |
Figure 6Discrimination of RN from recurrent GBM using DCE-MRI (a) and DSC-MRI (b). Contrast-enhanced T1WI demonstrates similar contrast enhancement in recurrent glioblastoma (top row) and RN (bottom row). Corresponding rCBV and Ktrans maps show significant difference between these two entities, with higher Ktrans and rCBV for recurrent tumor (top row) but low for RN (bottom row). Reproduce with permission from Bisdas et al. [184] and Masch et al. [186].