Krishnashis Chatterjee1, Naciye Atay1, Daniel Abler2,3, Saloni Bhargava1, Prativa Sahoo2, Russell C Rockne2, Jennifer M Munson1. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering & Mechanics, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, VA 24016, USA. 2. Department of Computational and Quantitative Medicine, Division of Mathematical Oncology, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Duarte, CA 91010, USA. 3. ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, 3008 Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the deadliest and most common brain tumor in adults, with poor survival and response to aggressive therapy. Limited access of drugs to tumor cells is one reason for such grim clinical outcomes. A driving force for therapeutic delivery is interstitial fluid flow (IFF), both within the tumor and in the surrounding brain parenchyma. However, convective and diffusive transport mechanisms are understudied. In this study, we examined the application of a novel image analysis method to measure fluid flow and diffusion in GBM patients. METHODS: Here, we applied an imaging methodology that had been previously tested and validated in vitro, in silico, and in preclinical models of disease to archival patient data from the Ivy Glioblastoma Atlas Project (GAP) dataset. The analysis required the use of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), which is readily available in the database. The analysis results, which consisted of IFF flow velocity and diffusion coefficients, were then compared to patient outcomes such as survival. RESULTS: We characterized IFF and diffusion patterns in patients. We found strong correlations between flow rates measured within tumors and in the surrounding parenchymal space, where we hypothesized that velocities would be higher. Analyzing overall magnitudes indicated a significant correlation with both age and survival in this patient cohort. Additionally, we found that neither tumor size nor resection significantly altered the velocity magnitude. Lastly, we mapped the flow pathways in patient tumors and found a variability in the degree of directionality that we hypothesize may lead to information concerning treatment, invasive spread, and progression in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of standard DCE-MRI in patients with GBM offers more information regarding IFF and transport within and around the tumor, shows that IFF is still detected post-resection, and indicates that velocity magnitudes correlate with patient prognosis.
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the deadliest and most common brain tumor in adults, with poor survival and response to aggressive therapy. Limited access of drugs to tumor cells is one reason for such grim clinical outcomes. A driving force for therapeutic delivery is interstitial fluid flow (IFF), both within the tumor and in the surrounding brain parenchyma. However, convective and diffusive transport mechanisms are understudied. In this study, we examined the application of a novel image analysis method to measure fluid flow and diffusion in GBM patients. METHODS: Here, we applied an imaging methodology that had been previously tested and validated in vitro, in silico, and in preclinical models of disease to archival patient data from the Ivy Glioblastoma Atlas Project (GAP) dataset. The analysis required the use of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), which is readily available in the database. The analysis results, which consisted of IFF flow velocity and diffusion coefficients, were then compared to patient outcomes such as survival. RESULTS: We characterized IFF and diffusion patterns in patients. We found strong correlations between flow rates measured within tumors and in the surrounding parenchymal space, where we hypothesized that velocities would be higher. Analyzing overall magnitudes indicated a significant correlation with both age and survival in this patient cohort. Additionally, we found that neither tumor size nor resection significantly altered the velocity magnitude. Lastly, we mapped the flow pathways in patient tumors and found a variability in the degree of directionality that we hypothesize may lead to information concerning treatment, invasive spread, and progression in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of standard DCE-MRI in patients with GBM offers more information regarding IFF and transport within and around the tumor, shows that IFF is still detected post-resection, and indicates that velocity magnitudes correlate with patient prognosis.
Authors: Raghu Raghavan; Martin L Brady; María Inmaculada Rodríguez-Ponce; Andreas Hartlep; Christoph Pedain; John H Sampson Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Josephine H Naish; Robert C Baldwin; Tufail Patankar; Suzanne Jeffries; Alistair S Burns; Christopher J Taylor; John C Waterton; Alan Jackson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Aniket S Wadajkar; Jimena G Dancy; David S Hersh; Pavlos Anastasiadis; Nhan L Tran; Graeme F Woodworth; Jeffrey A Winkles; Anthony J Kim Journal: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol Date: 2016-11-04
Authors: Kathryn M Kingsmore; Daniel K Logsdon; Desiree H Floyd; Shayn M Peirce; Benjamin W Purow; Jennifer M Munson Journal: Integr Biol (Camb) Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Beata Chertok; Bradford A Moffat; Allan E David; Faquan Yu; Christian Bergemann; Brian D Ross; Victor C Yang Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2007-10-26 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Ralph B Puchalski; Nameeta Shah; Jeremy Miller; Rachel Dalley; Steve R Nomura; Jae-Guen Yoon; Kimberly A Smith; Michael Lankerovich; Darren Bertagnolli; Kris Bickley; Andrew F Boe; Krissy Brouner; Stephanie Butler; Shiella Caldejon; Mike Chapin; Suvro Datta; Nick Dee; Tsega Desta; Tim Dolbeare; Nadezhda Dotson; Amanda Ebbert; David Feng; Xu Feng; Michael Fisher; Garrett Gee; Jeff Goldy; Lindsey Gourley; Benjamin W Gregor; Guangyu Gu; Nika Hejazinia; John Hohmann; Parvinder Hothi; Robert Howard; Kevin Joines; Ali Kriedberg; Leonard Kuan; Chris Lau; Felix Lee; Hwahyung Lee; Tracy Lemon; Fuhui Long; Naveed Mastan; Erika Mott; Chantal Murthy; Kiet Ngo; Eric Olson; Melissa Reding; Zack Riley; David Rosen; David Sandman; Nadiya Shapovalova; Clifford R Slaughterbeck; Andrew Sodt; Graham Stockdale; Aaron Szafer; Wayne Wakeman; Paul E Wohnoutka; Steven J White; Don Marsh; Robert C Rostomily; Lydia Ng; Chinh Dang; Allan Jones; Bart Keogh; Haley R Gittleman; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Patrick J Cimino; Megha S Uppin; C Dirk Keene; Farrokh R Farrokhi; Justin D Lathia; Michael E Berens; Antonio Iavarone; Amy Bernard; Ed Lein; John W Phillips; Steven W Rostad; Charles Cobbs; Michael J Hawrylycz; Greg D Foltz Journal: Science Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Olivia M Turk; Ryan C Woodall; Margarita Gutova; Christine E Brown; Russell C Rockne; Jennifer M Munson Journal: Drug Deliv Transl Res Date: 2021-10-30 Impact factor: 5.671
Authors: Chibueze D Nwagwu; Amanda V Immidisetti; Michael Y Jiang; Oluwasegun Adeagbo; David C Adamson; Anne-Marie Carbonell Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 6.321
Authors: R C Cornelison; J X Yuan; K M Tate; A Petrosky; G F Beeghly; M Bloomfield; S C Schwager; A L Berr; C A Stine; D Cimini; F F Bafakih; J W Mandell; B W Purow; B J Horton; J M Munson Journal: NPJ Precis Oncol Date: 2022-07-29