Heling Zhou1, Olivier Belzile2, Zhang Zhang3, Jo Wagner1, Chul Ahn4, James A Richardson5, Debabrata Saha3, Rolf A Brekken2,6, Ralph P Mason1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 2. Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 4. Department of Clinical Science, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 5. Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) MRI based on R 2 * measurements can provide insights into tumor vascular oxygenation. However, measurements are susceptible to blood flow, which may vary accompanying a hyperoxic gas challenge. We investigated flow sensitivity by comparing R 2 * measurements with and without flow suppression (fs) in 2 orthotopic lung xenograft tumor models. METHODS: H460 (n = 20) and A549 (n = 20) human lung tumor xenografts were induced by surgical implantation of cancer cells in the right lung of nude rats. MRI was performed at 4.7T after tumors reached 5 to 8 mm in diameter. A multiecho gradient echo MRI sequence was acquired with and without spatial saturation bands on each side of the imaging plane to evaluate the effect of flow on R 2 * . fs and non-fs R 2 * MRI measurements were interleaved during an oxygen breathing challenge (from air to 100% O2 ). T 2 * -weighted signal intensity changes (ΔSI(%)) and R 2 * measurements were obtained for regions of interest and on a voxel-by-voxel basis and discrepancies quantified with Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Flow suppression affected ΔSI(%) and R 2 * measurements in each tumor model. Average discrepancy and limits of agreement from Bland-Altman analyses revealed greater flow-related bias in A549 than H460. CONCLUSION: The effect of flow on R 2 * , and hence BOLD, was tumor model dependent with measurements being more sensitive in well-perfused A549 tumors.
PURPOSE: Blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) MRI based on R 2 * measurements can provide insights into tumor vascular oxygenation. However, measurements are susceptible to blood flow, which may vary accompanying a hyperoxic gas challenge. We investigated flow sensitivity by comparing R 2 * measurements with and without flow suppression (fs) in 2 orthotopic lung xenograft tumor models. METHODS: H460 (n = 20) and A549 (n = 20) humanlung tumor xenografts were induced by surgical implantation of cancer cells in the right lung of nude rats. MRI was performed at 4.7T after tumors reached 5 to 8 mm in diameter. A multiecho gradient echo MRI sequence was acquired with and without spatial saturation bands on each side of the imaging plane to evaluate the effect of flow on R 2 * . fs and non-fs R 2 * MRI measurements were interleaved during an oxygen breathing challenge (from air to 100% O2 ). T 2 * -weighted signal intensity changes (ΔSI(%)) and R 2 * measurements were obtained for regions of interest and on a voxel-by-voxel basis and discrepancies quantified with Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Flow suppression affected ΔSI(%) and R 2 * measurements in each tumor model. Average discrepancy and limits of agreement from Bland-Altman analyses revealed greater flow-related bias in A549 than H460. CONCLUSION: The effect of flow on R 2 * , and hence BOLD, was tumor model dependent with measurements being more sensitive in well-perfused A549 tumors.
Authors: Hania A Al-Hallaq; Xiaobing Fan; Marta Zamora; Jonathan N River; John E Moulder; Gregory S Karczmar Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Josephine H Naish; Geoffrey J M Parker; Paul C Beatty; Alan Jackson; Simon S Young; John C Waterton; Chris J Taylor Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Quynh-Thu Le; Eunice Chen; Ali Salim; Hongbin Cao; Christina S Kong; Richard Whyte; Jessica Donington; Walter Cannon; Heather Wakelee; Robert Tibshirani; John D Mitchell; Donna Richardson; Ken J O'Byrne; Albert C Koong; Amato J Giaccia Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Philip M Robson; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Martin P Smith; Maryellen R M Sun; Weiying Dai; Neil M Rofsky; Ivan Pedrosa; David C Alsop Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Lucas S Ryan; Jeni Gerberich; Jian Cao; Weiwei An; Becky A Jenkins; Ralph P Mason; Alexander R Lippert Journal: ACS Sens Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 7.711
Authors: Donghan M Yang; Tatsuya J Arai; James W Campbell; Jenifer L Gerberich; Heling Zhou; Ralph P Mason Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Poorva Ghosh; Yihang Guo; Adnin Ashrafi; Jingyu Chen; Sanchareeka Dey; Shigen Zhong; Jie Liu; James Campbell; Purna Chaitanya Konduri; Jeni Gerberich; Massoud Garrossian; Ralph P Mason; Li Zhang; Li Liu Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Li Liu; Devin O'Kelly; Regan Schuetze; Graham Carlson; Heling Zhou; Mary Lynn Trawick; Kevin G Pinney; Ralph P Mason Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Natalie J Serkova; Kristine Glunde; Chad R Haney; Mohammed Farhoud; Alexandra De Lille; Elizabeth F Redente; Dmitri Simberg; David C Westerly; Lynn Griffin; Ralph P Mason Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 13.312