Eric Aliotta1,2, Prem P Batchala3, David Schiff4, Beatriz M Lopes5, Jason T Druzgal3, Sugoto Mukherjee3, Sohil H Patel3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. eric.aliotta@virginia.edu. 2. Radiological Physics, University of Virginia, 1335 Lee St, Box 800375, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. eric.aliotta@virginia.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. 5. Department of Pathology (Neuropathology), University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diffuse lower grade gliomas (LGG) with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) gene mutations (IDHMUT) have a distinct survival advantage compared with IDH wild-type (IDHWT) cases but the mechanism underlying this disparity is not well understood. Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) has identified infiltrated non-enhancing tumor regions that are characterized by low isotropic (p) and high anisotropic (q) diffusion tensor components that associate with poor survival in glioblastoma. We hypothesized that similar regions are more prevalent in IDHWT (vs. IDHMUT) LGG. METHODS: p and q maps were reconstructed from preoperative DTI scans in N = 41 LGG patients with known IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion status. Enhancing and non-enhancing tumor volumes were autosegmented from standard (non-DTI) MRI scans. Percentage non-enhancing tumor volumes exhibiting low p and high q (Vinf) were then determined using threshold values (p = 2 × 10-3mm2/s, q = 3 × 10-4 mm2/s) and compared between IDHWT and IDHMUT LGG, and between IDHMUT LGG with and without 1p/19q codeletion. RESULTS: Vinf volumes were significantly larger in IDHWT LGG than in IDHMUT LGG (35.4 ± 18.3% vs. 15.9 ± 7.6%, P < 0.001). Vinf volumes did not significantly differ between IDHMUT LGG with and without 1p/19q codeletion (17.1 ± 9.5% vs. 14.8 ± 5.8%, P = 1.0). CONCLUSION: IDHWT LGG exhibited larger volumes with suppressed isotropic diffusion (p) and high anisotropic diffusion (q) which reflects regions with increased cell density but non-disrupted neuronal structures. This may indicate a greater prevalence of infiltrative tumor in IDHWT LGG.
PURPOSE: Diffuse lower grade gliomas (LGG) with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) gene mutations (IDHMUT) have a distinct survival advantage compared with IDH wild-type (IDHWT) cases but the mechanism underlying this disparity is not well understood. Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) has identified infiltrated non-enhancing tumor regions that are characterized by low isotropic (p) and high anisotropic (q) diffusion tensor components that associate with poor survival in glioblastoma. We hypothesized that similar regions are more prevalent in IDHWT (vs. IDHMUT) LGG. METHODS: p and q maps were reconstructed from preoperative DTI scans in N = 41 LGG patients with known IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion status. Enhancing and non-enhancing tumor volumes were autosegmented from standard (non-DTI) MRI scans. Percentage non-enhancing tumor volumes exhibiting low p and high q (Vinf) were then determined using threshold values (p = 2 × 10-3mm2/s, q = 3 × 10-4 mm2/s) and compared between IDHWT and IDHMUT LGG, and between IDHMUT LGG with and without 1p/19q codeletion. RESULTS: Vinf volumes were significantly larger in IDHWT LGG than in IDHMUT LGG (35.4 ± 18.3% vs. 15.9 ± 7.6%, P < 0.001). Vinf volumes did not significantly differ between IDHMUT LGG with and without 1p/19q codeletion (17.1 ± 9.5% vs. 14.8 ± 5.8%, P = 1.0). CONCLUSION: IDHWT LGG exhibited larger volumes with suppressed isotropic diffusion (p) and high anisotropic diffusion (q) which reflects regions with increased cell density but non-disrupted neuronal structures. This may indicate a greater prevalence of infiltrative tumor in IDHWT LGG.
Authors: C-C Wu; R Jain; A Radmanesh; L M Poisson; W-Y Guo; D Zagzag; M Snuderl; D G Placantonakis; J Golfinos; A S Chi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Maarten M J Wijnenga; Pim J French; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Winand N M Dinjens; Peggy N Atmodimedjo; Johan M Kros; Marion Smits; Renske Gahrmann; Geert-Jan Rutten; Jeroen B Verheul; Ruth Fleischeuer; Clemens M F Dirven; Arnaud J P E Vincent; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Konstantinos Kamnitsas; Christian Ledig; Virginia F J Newcombe; Joanna P Simpson; Andrew D Kane; David K Menon; Daniel Rueckert; Ben Glocker Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2016-10-29 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: S J Price; R Jena; N G Burnet; P J Hutchinson; A F Dean; A Peña; J D Pickard; T A Carpenter; J H Gillard Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Joseph M Foster; Assa Oumie; Fiona S Togneri; Fabiana Ramos Vasques; Debra Hau; Morag Taylor; Emma Tinkler-Hundal; Katie Southward; Paul Medlow; Keith McGreeghan-Crosby; Iris Halfpenny; Dominic J McMullan; Phil Quirke; Katherine E Keating; Mike Griffiths; Karen G Spink; Fiona Brew Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 3.063
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