Rasha Elmghirbi1,2, Tavarekere N Nagaraja3, Stephen L Brown4, Kelly A Keenan3, Swayamprava Panda2, Glauber Cabral2, Hassan Bagher-Ebadian1,4, George W Divine5, Ian Y Lee3, James R Ewing1,2,6. 1. Department of Physics, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. 2. Department of Neurology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 6. Department of Neurology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study demonstrates a DCE-MRI estimate of tumor interstitial fluid pressure (TIFP) and hydraulic conductivity in a rat model of glioblastoma, with validation against an invasive wick-in-needle (WIN) technique. An elevated TIFP is considered a mark of aggressiveness, and a decreased TIFP a predictor of response to therapy. METHODS: The DCE-MRI studies were conducted in 36 athymic rats (controls and posttreatment animals) with implanted U251 cerebral tumors, and with TIFP measured using a WIN method. Using a model selection paradigm and a novel application of Patlak and Logan plots to DCE-MRI data, the MRI parameters required for estimating TIFP noninvasively were estimated. Two models, a fluid-mechanical model and a multivariate empirical model, were used for estimating TIFP, as verified against WIN-TIFP. RESULTS: Using DCE-MRI, the mean estimated hydraulic conductivity (MRI-K) in U251 tumors was (2.3 ± 3.1) × 10-5 (mm2 /mmHg-s) in control studies. Significant positive correlations were found between WIN-TIFP and MRI-TIFP in both mechanical and empirical models. For instance, in the control group of the fluid-mechanical model, MRI-TIFP was a strong predictor of WIN-TIFP (R2 = 0.76, p < .0001). A similar result was found in the bevacizumab-treated group of the empirical model (R2 = 0.93, p = .014). CONCLUSION: This research suggests that MRI dynamic studies contain enough information to noninvasively estimate TIFP in this, and possibly other, tumor models, and thus might be used to assess tumor aggressiveness and response to therapy.
PURPOSE: This study demonstrates a DCE-MRI estimate of tumor interstitial fluid pressure (TIFP) and hydraulic conductivity in a rat model of glioblastoma, with validation against an invasive wick-in-needle (WIN) technique. An elevated TIFP is considered a mark of aggressiveness, and a decreased TIFP a predictor of response to therapy. METHODS: The DCE-MRI studies were conducted in 36 athymic rats (controls and posttreatment animals) with implanted U251 cerebral tumors, and with TIFP measured using a WIN method. Using a model selection paradigm and a novel application of Patlak and Logan plots to DCE-MRI data, the MRI parameters required for estimating TIFP noninvasively were estimated. Two models, a fluid-mechanical model and a multivariate empirical model, were used for estimating TIFP, as verified against WIN-TIFP. RESULTS: Using DCE-MRI, the mean estimated hydraulic conductivity (MRI-K) in U251 tumors was (2.3 ± 3.1) × 10-5 (mm2 /mmHg-s) in control studies. Significant positive correlations were found between WIN-TIFP and MRI-TIFP in both mechanical and empirical models. For instance, in the control group of the fluid-mechanical model, MRI-TIFP was a strong predictor of WIN-TIFP (R2 = 0.76, p < .0001). A similar result was found in the bevacizumab-treated group of the empirical model (R2 = 0.93, p = .014). CONCLUSION: This research suggests that MRI dynamic studies contain enough information to noninvasively estimate TIFP in this, and possibly other, tumor models, and thus might be used to assess tumor aggressiveness and response to therapy.
Authors: J Logan; J S Fowler; N D Volkow; A P Wolf; S L Dewey; D J Schlyer; R R MacGregor; R Hitzemann; B Bendriem; S J Gatley Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Einar K Rofstad; Siv H Tunheim; Berit Mathiesen; Bjørn A Graff; Ellen F Halsør; Kristin Nilsen; Kanthi Galappathi Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Stephen L Brown; Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Madhava P Aryal; Swayamprava Panda; Glauber Cabral; Kelly Ann Keenan; Rasha Elmghirbi; Tom Mikkelsen; David Hearshen; Robert A Knight; Ning Wen; Jae Ho Kim; James R Ewing Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Seamus Bartlett; Katelynn G Farmer; Glauber Cabral; Robert A Knight; O Grahm Valadie; Stephen L Brown; James R Ewing; Ian Y Lee Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Ali Mohammadabadi; Ruby N Huynh; Aniket S Wadajkar; Rena G Lapidus; Anthony J Kim; Christopher B Raub; Victor Frenkel Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Rasha Elmghirbi; Stephen L Brown; Julian A Rey; Lonni Schultz; Abir Mukherjee; Glauber Cabral; Swayamprava Panda; Ian Y Lee; Malisa Sarntinoranont; Kelly A Keenan; Robert A Knight; James R Ewing Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-04-04 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Ana C deCarvalho; Stephen L Brown; Brent Griffith; Katelynn Farmer; Susan Irtenkauf; Laura Hasselbach; Abir Mukherjee; Seamus Bartlett; O Grahm Valadie; Glauber Cabral; Robert A Knight; Ian Y Lee; George W Divine; James R Ewing Journal: Cancer Treat Res Commun Date: 2021-01-19
Authors: Lise Mari K Hansem; Ruixia Huang; Catherine S Wegner; Trude G Simonsen; Jon-Vidar Gaustad; Anette Hauge; Einar K Rofstad Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Daniel Fovargue; Marco Fiorito; Adela Capilnasiu; David Nordsletten; Jack Lee; Ralph Sinkus Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 4.379