Anahita Fathi Kazerooni1,2, Mahnaz Nabil3, Mehdi Zeinali Zadeh4, Kavous Firouznia5, Farid Azmoudeh-Ardalan6, Alejandro F Frangi7, Christos Davatzikos8, Hamidreza Saligheh Rad1,2. 1. Quantitative MR Imaging and Spectroscopy Group, Research Center for Molecular and Cellular Imaging, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematical Science, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 5. Advanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 6. Department of Pathology, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 7. Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 8. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Targeted localized biopsies and treatments for diffuse gliomas rely on accurate identification of tissue subregions, for which current MRI techniques lack specificity. PURPOSE: To explore the complementary and competitive roles of a variety of conventional and quantitative MRI methods for distinguishing subregions of brain gliomas. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Fifty-one tissue specimens were collected using image-guided localized biopsy surgery from 10 patients with newly diagnosed gliomas. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Conventional and quantitative MR images consisting of pre- and postcontrast T1 w, T2 w, T2 -FLAIR, T2 -relaxometry, DWI, DTI, IVIM, and DSC-MRI were acquired preoperatively at 3T. ASSESSMENT: Biopsy specimens were histopathologically attributed to glioma tissue subregion categories of active tumor (AT), infiltrative edema (IE), and normal tissue (NT) subregions. For each tissue sample, a feature vector comprising 15 MRI-based parameters was derived from preoperative images and assessed by a machine learning algorithm to determine the best multiparametric feature combination for characterizing the tissue subregions. STATISTICAL TESTS: For discrimination of AT, IE, and NT subregions, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and for pairwise tissue subregion differentiation, Tukey honest significant difference, and Games-Howell tests were applied (P < 0.05). Cross-validated feature selection and classification methods were implemented for identification of accurate multiparametric MRI parameter combination. RESULTS: After exclusion of 17 tissue specimens, 34 samples (AT = 6, IE = 20, and NT = 8) were considered for analysis. Highest accuracies and statistically significant differences for discrimination of IE from NT and AT from NT were observed for diffusion-based parameters (AUCs >90%), and the perfusion-derived parameter as the most accurate feature in distinguishing IE from AT. A combination of "CBV, MD, T2 _ISO, FLAIR" parameters showed high diagnostic performance for identification of the three subregions (AUC ∼90%). DATA CONCLUSION: Integration of a few quantitative along with conventional MRI parameters may provide a potential multiparametric imaging biomarker for predicting the histopathologically proven glioma tissue subregions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:938-950.
BACKGROUND: Targeted localized biopsies and treatments for diffuse gliomas rely on accurate identification of tissue subregions, for which current MRI techniques lack specificity. PURPOSE: To explore the complementary and competitive roles of a variety of conventional and quantitative MRI methods for distinguishing subregions of brain gliomas. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Fifty-one tissue specimens were collected using image-guided localized biopsy surgery from 10 patients with newly diagnosed gliomas. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Conventional and quantitative MR images consisting of pre- and postcontrast T1 w, T2 w, T2 -FLAIR, T2 -relaxometry, DWI, DTI, IVIM, and DSC-MRI were acquired preoperatively at 3T. ASSESSMENT: Biopsy specimens were histopathologically attributed to glioma tissue subregion categories of active tumor (AT), infiltrative edema (IE), and normal tissue (NT) subregions. For each tissue sample, a feature vector comprising 15 MRI-based parameters was derived from preoperative images and assessed by a machine learning algorithm to determine the best multiparametric feature combination for characterizing the tissue subregions. STATISTICAL TESTS: For discrimination of AT, IE, and NT subregions, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and for pairwise tissue subregion differentiation, Tukey honest significant difference, and Games-Howell tests were applied (P < 0.05). Cross-validated feature selection and classification methods were implemented for identification of accurate multiparametric MRI parameter combination. RESULTS: After exclusion of 17 tissue specimens, 34 samples (AT = 6, IE = 20, and NT = 8) were considered for analysis. Highest accuracies and statistically significant differences for discrimination of IE from NT and AT from NT were observed for diffusion-based parameters (AUCs >90%), and the perfusion-derived parameter as the most accurate feature in distinguishing IE from AT. A combination of "CBV, MD, T2 _ISO, FLAIR" parameters showed high diagnostic performance for identification of the three subregions (AUC ∼90%). DATA CONCLUSION: Integration of a few quantitative along with conventional MRI parameters may provide a potential multiparametric imaging biomarker for predicting the histopathologically proven glioma tissue subregions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:938-950.
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: N Sadeghi; N D'Haene; C Decaestecker; M Levivier; T Metens; C Maris; D Wikler; D Baleriaux; I Salmon; S Goldman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-12-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Gisele B Caseiras; Sophie Chheang; James Babb; Jeremy H Rees; Nicole Pecerrelli; Daniel J Tozer; Christopher Benton; David Zagzag; Glyn Johnson; Adam D Waldman; H R Jäger; Meng Law Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Stephen J Price; Alonso Peña; Neil G Burnet; Raj Jena; Hadrian A L Green; T Adrian Carpenter; John D Pickard; Jonathan H Gillard Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-06-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Leland S Hu; Shuluo Ning; Jennifer M Eschbacher; Nathan Gaw; Amylou C Dueck; Kris A Smith; Peter Nakaji; Jonathan Plasencia; Sara Ranjbar; Stephen J Price; Nhan Tran; Joseph Loftus; Robert Jenkins; Brian P O'Neill; William Elmquist; Leslie C Baxter; Fei Gao; David Frakes; John P Karis; Christine Zwart; Kristin R Swanson; Jann Sarkaria; Teresa Wu; J Ross Mitchell; Jing Li Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Niels Verburg; Thomas Koopman; Maqsood M Yaqub; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Frederik Barkhof; Petra J W Pouwels; Jaap C Reijneveld; Jan J Heimans; Annemarie J M Rozemuller; Anne M E Bruynzeel; Frank Lagerwaard; William P Vandertop; Ronald Boellaard; Pieter Wesseling; Philip C de Witt Hamer Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Patricia Clement; Thomas Booth; Fran Borovečki; Kyrre E Emblem; Patrícia Figueiredo; Lydiane Hirschler; Radim Jančálek; Vera C Keil; Camille Maumet; Yelda Özsunar; Cyril Pernet; Jan Petr; Joana Pinto; Marion Smits; Esther A H Warnert Journal: J Med Biol Eng Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 2.213
Authors: Mingquan Lin; Jacob F Wynne; Boran Zhou; Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: David Sipos; Zoltan László; Zoltan Tóth; Peter Kovács; Jozsef Tollár; Akos Gulybán; Ferenc Lakosi; Imre Repa; Arpad Kovács Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Anahita Fathi Kazerooni; Hamed Akbari; Gaurav Shukla; Chaitra Badve; Jeffrey D Rudie; Chiharu Sako; Saima Rathore; Spyridon Bakas; Sarthak Pati; Ashish Singh; Mark Bergman; Sung Min Ha; Despina Kontos; MacLean Nasrallah; Stephen J Bagley; Robert A Lustig; Donald M O'Rourke; Andrew E Sloan; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Suyash Mohan; Michel Bilello; Christos Davatzikos Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-03