Hatef Mehrabian1, Sten Myrehaug2, Hany Soliman2, Arjun Sahgal3, Greg J Stanisz4. 1. Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: hatef.mehrabian@sunnybrook.ca. 2. Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Neurosurgery and Pediatric Neurosurgery, Medical University, Lublin, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To monitor cellular and metabolic characteristics of glioblastoma (GBM) over the course of standard 6-week chemoradiation treatment with chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST)-MRI; and to identify the earliest time point CEST could determine subsequent therapeutic response. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen patients with newly diagnosed GBM were recruited, and CEST-MRI was acquired immediately before (Day0), 2 weeks (Day14) and 4 weeks (Day28) into treatment, and 1 month after the end of treatment (Day70). Several CEST metrics, including magnetization transfer ratio and area under the curve of CEST peaks corresponding to nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE) and amide protons (MTRNOE, MTRAmide, CESTNOE, and CESTAmide respectively), magnetization transfer (MT), and direct water effect were investigated. Lack of early progression was determined as no increase in tumor size or worsening of clinical symptoms according to routine post-chemoradiation serial structural MRI. RESULTS: Changes in MTRNOE (nonprogressors = 1.35 ± 0.18, progressors = 0.97 ± 0.22, P = .006) and MTRAmide (nonprogressors = 1.25 ± 0.17, progressors = 0.99 ± 0.10, P = .017) between baseline (Day0) and Day14 resulted in the best separation of nonprogressors from progressors. Moreover, the baseline (Day0) MTRNOE (nonprogressors = 6.5% ± 1.6%, progressors = 9.1% ± 2.1%, P = .015), MTRAmide (nonprogressors = 6.7% ± 1.7%, progressors = 8.9% ± 1.9%, P = .028), MT (nonprogressors = 3.8% ± 0.9%, progressors = 5.4% ± 1.4%, P = .019), and CESTNOE (nonprogressors = 4.1%ċHz ± 1.7%ċHz, progressors = 6.1%ċHz ± 1.9%ċHz, P = .044) were able to identify progressors even before the start of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) provides imaging-based biomarkers of GBM response as early as 2 weeks into the treatment. Certain CEST metrics can characterize tumor aggressiveness and identify early progressors even before beginning the treatment. Such an early biomarker of response may allow for adjusting the GBM treatment plan for adaptive radiation therapy in early progressors and more confidently continuing standard adjuvant treatment for nonprogressors.
PURPOSE: To monitor cellular and metabolic characteristics of glioblastoma (GBM) over the course of standard 6-week chemoradiation treatment with chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST)-MRI; and to identify the earliest time point CEST could determine subsequent therapeutic response. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nineteen patients with newly diagnosed GBM were recruited, and CEST-MRI was acquired immediately before (Day0), 2 weeks (Day14) and 4 weeks (Day28) into treatment, and 1 month after the end of treatment (Day70). Several CEST metrics, including magnetization transfer ratio and area under the curve of CEST peaks corresponding to nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE) and amide protons (MTRNOE, MTRAmide, CESTNOE, and CESTAmide respectively), magnetization transfer (MT), and direct water effect were investigated. Lack of early progression was determined as no increase in tumor size or worsening of clinical symptoms according to routine post-chemoradiation serial structural MRI. RESULTS: Changes in MTRNOE (nonprogressors = 1.35 ± 0.18, progressors = 0.97 ± 0.22, P = .006) and MTRAmide (nonprogressors = 1.25 ± 0.17, progressors = 0.99 ± 0.10, P = .017) between baseline (Day0) and Day14 resulted in the best separation of nonprogressors from progressors. Moreover, the baseline (Day0) MTRNOE (nonprogressors = 6.5% ± 1.6%, progressors = 9.1% ± 2.1%, P = .015), MTRAmide (nonprogressors = 6.7% ± 1.7%, progressors = 8.9% ± 1.9%, P = .028), MT (nonprogressors = 3.8% ± 0.9%, progressors = 5.4% ± 1.4%, P = .019), and CESTNOE (nonprogressors = 4.1%ċHz ± 1.7%ċHz, progressors = 6.1%ċHz ± 1.9%ċHz, P = .044) were able to identify progressors even before the start of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) provides imaging-based biomarkers of GBM response as early as 2 weeks into the treatment. Certain CEST metrics can characterize tumor aggressiveness and identify early progressors even before beginning the treatment. Such an early biomarker of response may allow for adjusting the GBM treatment plan for adaptive radiation therapy in early progressors and more confidently continuing standard adjuvant treatment for nonprogressors.
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: 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: Erwin Krikken; Wybe J M van der Kemp; Vitaliy Khlebnikov; Thijs van Dalen; Maartje Los; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Peter R Luijten; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Dennis W J Klomp; Jannie P Wijnen Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 4.044