Yi Lao1, Victoria Yu2, Anthony Pham3, Theodore Wang3, Jing Cui3, Audrey Gallogly3, Eric Chang3, Zhaoyang Fan4, Tania Kaprealian1, Wensha Yang5, Ke Sheng6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California - Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: Wensha.Yang@med.usc.edu. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California - Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: ksheng@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Emerging evidence has linked glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) recurrence and survival to stem cell niches (SCNs). However, the traditional tumor-ventricle distance is insufficiently powered for an accurate prediction. We aimed to use a novel inverse distance map for improved prediction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two T1-magnetic resonance imaging data sets were included for a total of 237 preoperative scans for prognostic stratification and 55 follow-up scans for recurrent pattern identification. SCN, including the subventricular zone (SVZ) and subgranular zone (SGZ), were manually defined on a standard template. A proximity map was generated using the summed inverse distances to all SCN voxels. The mean and maximum proximity scores (PSm-SCN and PSmax-SCN) were calculated for each primary/recurrent tumor, deformably transformed into the template. The prognostic capacity of proximity score (PS)-derived metrics was assessed using Cox regression and log-rank tests. To evaluate the impact of SCNs on recurrence patterns, we performed group comparisons of PS-derived metrics between the primary and recurrent tumors. For comparison, the same analyses were conducted on PS derived from SVZ alone and traditional edge/center-to-ventricle metrics. RESULTS: Among all SCN-derived features, PSm-SCN was the strongest survival predictor (P < .0001). PSmax-SCN was the best in risk stratification, using either evenly sorted (P = .0001) or k-means clustering methods (P = .0045). PS metrics based on SVZ only also correlated with overall survival and risk stratification, but to a lesser degree of significance. In contrast, edge/center-to-ventricle metrics showed weak to no prediction capacities in either task. Moreover, PSm-SCN,PSm-SVZ, and center-to-ventricle metrics revealed a significantly closer SCN distribution of recurrence than primary tumors. CONCLUSIONS: We introduced a novel inverse distance-based metric to comprehensively capture the anatomic relationship between GBM tumors and SCN zones. The derived metrics outperformed traditional edge or center distance-based measurements in overall survival prediction, risk stratification, and recurrent pattern differentiation. Our results reveal the potential role of SGZ in recurrence aside from SVZ.
PURPOSE: Emerging evidence has linked glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) recurrence and survival to stem cell niches (SCNs). However, the traditional tumor-ventricle distance is insufficiently powered for an accurate prediction. We aimed to use a novel inverse distance map for improved prediction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two T1-magnetic resonance imaging data sets were included for a total of 237 preoperative scans for prognostic stratification and 55 follow-up scans for recurrent pattern identification. SCN, including the subventricular zone (SVZ) and subgranular zone (SGZ), were manually defined on a standard template. A proximity map was generated using the summed inverse distances to all SCN voxels. The mean and maximum proximity scores (PSm-SCN and PSmax-SCN) were calculated for each primary/recurrent tumor, deformably transformed into the template. The prognostic capacity of proximity score (PS)-derived metrics was assessed using Cox regression and log-rank tests. To evaluate the impact of SCNs on recurrence patterns, we performed group comparisons of PS-derived metrics between the primary and recurrent tumors. For comparison, the same analyses were conducted on PS derived from SVZ alone and traditional edge/center-to-ventricle metrics. RESULTS: Among all SCN-derived features, PSm-SCN was the strongest survival predictor (P < .0001). PSmax-SCN was the best in risk stratification, using either evenly sorted (P = .0001) or k-means clustering methods (P = .0045). PS metrics based on SVZ only also correlated with overall survival and risk stratification, but to a lesser degree of significance. In contrast, edge/center-to-ventricle metrics showed weak to no prediction capacities in either task. Moreover, PSm-SCN,PSm-SVZ, and center-to-ventricle metrics revealed a significantly closer SCN distribution of recurrence than primary tumors. CONCLUSIONS: We introduced a novel inverse distance-based metric to comprehensively capture the anatomic relationship between GBM tumors and SCN zones. The derived metrics outperformed traditional edge or center distance-based measurements in overall survival prediction, risk stratification, and recurrent pattern differentiation. Our results reveal the potential role of SGZ in recurrence aside from SVZ.
Authors: Nader Sanai; Anthony D Tramontin; Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa; Nicholas M Barbaro; Nalin Gupta; Sandeep Kunwar; Michael T Lawton; Michael W McDermott; Andrew T Parsa; José Manuel-García Verdugo; Mitchel S Berger; Arturo Alvarez-Buylla Journal: Nature Date: 2004-02-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Akshitkumar M Mistry; Michael C Dewan; Gabrielle A White-Dzuro; Philip R Brinson; Kyle D Weaver; Reid C Thompson; Rebecca A Ihrie; Lola B Chambless Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Spyridon Bakas; Hamed Akbari; Aristeidis Sotiras; Michel Bilello; Martin Rozycki; Justin S Kirby; John B Freymann; Keyvan Farahani; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Sci Data Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Nicholas J Tustison; Brian B Avants; Philip A Cook; Yuanjie Zheng; Alexander Egan; Paul A Yushkevich; James C Gee Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi; Warren P Mason; Martin J van den Bent; Martin J B Taphoorn; Robert C Janzer; Samuel K Ludwin; Anouk Allgeier; Barbara Fisher; Karl Belanger; Peter Hau; Alba A Brandes; Johanna Gijtenbeek; Christine Marosi; Charles J Vecht; Karima Mokhtari; Pieter Wesseling; Salvador Villa; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thierry Gorlia; Michael Weller; Denis Lacombe; J Gregory Cairncross; René-Olivier Mirimanoff Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sheila Alcantara Llaguno; Jian Chen; Chang-Hyuk Kwon; Erica L Jackson; Yanjiao Li; Dennis K Burns; Arturo Alvarez-Buylla; Luis F Parada Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Yi Lao; Dan Ruan; April Vassantachart; Zhaoyang Fan; Jason C Ye; Eric L Chang; Robert Chin; Tania Kaprealian; Gabriel Zada; Mark S Shiroishi; Ke Sheng; Wensha Yang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-12-26 Impact factor: 7.038