Hatef Mehrabian1,2, Wilfred W Lam3, Sten Myrehaug4,5, Arjun Sahgal6,4,5, Greg J Stanisz3,6,7. 1. Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. hatef.mehrabian@sunnybrook.ca. 2. Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 1700 - 4th St., Suite BH 201, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. hatef.mehrabian@sunnybrook.ca. 3. Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Department of Neurosurgery and Pediatric Neurosurgery, Medical University, Lublin, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective was to investigate (with quantitative MRI) whether the normal appearing white matter (NAWM) of glioblastoma (GBM) patients on the contralateral side (cNAWM) was different from NAWM of healthy controls. METHODS: Thirteen patients with newly diagnosed GBM and nine healthy age-matched controls were MRI-scanned with quantitative magnetization transfer (qMT), chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST), and transverse relaxation time (T2)-mapping. MRI scans were performed after surgery and before chemo-radiation treatment. Comprehensive qMT, CEST, T2 data were acquired. A two-pool MT model was fit to qMT data in transient state, to calculate MT model parameters [Formula: see text]. CEST signal was isolated by removing the contributions from the MT and direct water saturation, and CEST signal was calculated for Amide (CESTAmide), Amine (CESTAmine) and nuclear overhauser effect, NOE (CESTNOE). RESULTS: There was no difference between GBM patients and normal controls in the qMT properties of the macromolecular pool [Formula: see text]. However, their free water pool spectrum was different (1/RaT2a,patient = 28.1 ± 3.9, 1/RaT2a,control = 25.0 ± 1.1, p = 0.03). This difference could be attributed to the difference in their T2 time ([Formula: see text] = 83 ± 4, [Formula: see text] = 88 ± 1, p = 0.004). CEST signals were statistically significantly different with the CESTAmide having the largest difference between the two cohorts (CESTAmide,patient = 2.8 ± 0.4, CESTAmide,control = 3.4 ± 0.5, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: CEST in cNAWM of GBM patients was lower than healthy controls which could be caused by modified brain metabolism due to tumor cell infiltration. There was no difference in MT properties of the patients and controls, however, the differences in free water pool properties were mainly due to reduced T2 in cNAWM of the patients (resulting from structural changes and increased cellularity).
PURPOSE: The objective was to investigate (with quantitative MRI) whether the normal appearing white matter (NAWM) of glioblastoma (GBM) patients on the contralateral side (cNAWM) was different from NAWM of healthy controls. METHODS: Thirteen patients with newly diagnosed GBM and nine healthy age-matched controls were MRI-scanned with quantitative magnetization transfer (qMT), chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST), and transverse relaxation time (T2)-mapping. MRI scans were performed after surgery and before chemo-radiation treatment. Comprehensive qMT, CEST, T2 data were acquired. A two-pool MT model was fit to qMT data in transient state, to calculate MT model parameters [Formula: see text]. CEST signal was isolated by removing the contributions from the MT and direct water saturation, and CEST signal was calculated for Amide (CESTAmide), Amine (CESTAmine) and nuclear overhauser effect, NOE (CESTNOE). RESULTS: There was no difference between GBM patients and normal controls in the qMT properties of the macromolecular pool [Formula: see text]. However, their free water pool spectrum was different (1/RaT2a,patient = 28.1 ± 3.9, 1/RaT2a,control = 25.0 ± 1.1, p = 0.03). This difference could be attributed to the difference in their T2 time ([Formula: see text] = 83 ± 4, [Formula: see text] = 88 ± 1, p = 0.004). CEST signals were statistically significantly different with the CESTAmide having the largest difference between the two cohorts (CESTAmide,patient = 2.8 ± 0.4, CESTAmide,control = 3.4 ± 0.5, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: CEST in cNAWM of GBM patients was lower than healthy controls which could be caused by modified brain metabolism due to tumor cell infiltration. There was no difference in MT properties of the patients and controls, however, the differences in free water pool properties were mainly due to reduced T2 in cNAWM of the patients (resulting from structural changes and increased cellularity).
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST); Glioblastoma (GBM); Normal appearing white matter (NAWM); Quantitative magnetization transfer (qMT)
Authors: Moritz Zaiss; Johannes Windschuh; Daniel Paech; Jan-Eric Meissner; Sina Burth; Benjamin Schmitt; Philip Kickingereder; Benedikt Wiestler; Wolfgang Wick; Martin Bendszus; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Mark E Ladd; Peter Bachert; Alexander Radbruch Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Felix Sahm; David Capper; Astrid Jeibmann; Antje Habel; Werner Paulus; Dirk Troost; Andreas von Deimling Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2011-12-12
Authors: William A Hall; Eric S Paulson; Uulke A van der Heide; Clifton D Fuller; B W Raaymakers; Jan J W Lagendijk; X Allen Li; David A Jaffray; Laura A Dawson; Beth Erickson; Marcel Verheij; Kevin J Harrington; Arjun Sahgal; Percy Lee; Parag J Parikh; Michael F Bassetti; Clifford G Robinson; Bruce D Minsky; Ananya Choudhury; Robert J H A Tersteeg; Christopher J Schultz Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Alex K Smith; Kevin J Ray; James R Larkin; Martin Craig; Seth A Smith; Michael A Chappell Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Anagha Deshmane; Moritz Zaiss; Tobias Lindig; Kai Herz; Mark Schuppert; Chirayu Gandhi; Benjamin Bender; Ulrike Ernemann; Klaus Scheffler Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Julia P Lingl; Arthur Wunderlich; Steffen Goerke; Daniel Paech; Mark E Ladd; Patrick Liebig; Andrej Pala; Soung Yung Kim; Michael Braun; Bernd L Schmitz; Meinrad Beer; Johannes Rosskopf Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-14
Authors: Yulun Wu; Tobias C Wood; Fatemeh Arzanforoosh; Juan A Hernandez-Tamames; Gareth J Barker; Marion Smits; Esther A H Warnert Journal: MAGMA Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Fulvio Zaccagna; Mary A McLean; James T Grist; Joshua Kaggie; Richard Mair; Frank Riemer; Ramona Woitek; Andrew B Gill; Surrin Deen; Charlie J Daniels; Stephan Ursprung; Rolf F Schulte; Kieren Allinson; Anita Chhabra; Marie-Christine Laurent; Matthew Locke; Amy Frary; Sarah Hilborne; Ilse Patterson; Bruno D Carmo; Rhys Slough; Ian Wilkinson; Bristi Basu; James Wason; Jonathan H Gillard; Tomasz Matys; Colin Watts; Stephen J Price; Thomas Santarius; Martin J Graves; Sarah Jefferies; Kevin M Brindle; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-07