| Literature DB >> 34943621 |
Lea Starck1,2, Fulvio Zaccagna3,4, Ofer Pasternak5,6, Ferdia A Gallagher7,8, Renate Grüner1,2, Frank Riemer2.
Abstract
Diffusion MRI is a useful tool to investigate the microstructure of brain tumors. However, the presence of fast diffusing isotropic signals originating from non-restricted edematous fluids, within and surrounding tumors, may obscure estimation of the underlying tissue characteristics, complicating the radiological interpretation and quantitative evaluation of diffusion MRI. A multi-shell regularized free water (FW) elimination model was therefore applied to separate free water from tissue-related diffusion components from the diffusion MRI of 26 treatment-naïve glioma patients. We then investigated the diagnostic value of the derived measures of FW maps as well as FW-corrected tensor-derived maps of fractional anisotropy (FA). Presumed necrotic tumor regions display greater mean and variance of FW content than other parts of the tumor. On average, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for the classification of necrotic and enhancing tumor volumes increased by 5% in corrected data compared to non-corrected data. FW elimination shifts the FA distribution in non-enhancing tumor parts toward higher values and significantly increases its entropy (p ≤ 0.003), whereas skewness is decreased (p ≤ 0.004). Kurtosis is significantly decreased (p < 0.001) in high-grade tumors. In conclusion, eliminating FW contributions improved quantitative estimations of FA, which helps to disentangle the cancer heterogeneity.Entities:
Keywords: free water; glioma; tumor characterization
Year: 2021 PMID: 34943621 PMCID: PMC8700586 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11122385
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Number of patients, mean total tumor volume, mean age, and sex across tumor grades. Note that edema was included in total volume, and the single grade I patient did not have much edema.
| Grade I | Grade II | Grade III | Grade IV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 1 (1 F *) | 8 (7 F, 1 M **) | 2 (1 F, 1 M) | 15 (6 F, 9 M) |
| Mean age | 22 years | 35 ± 11 years | 46 ± 11 years | 65 ± 10 years |
| Mean total tumor volume | 6.0 cc *** | 57.6 ± 76.5 cc | 48.0 ± 12.5 cc | 46.7 ± 27.2 cc |
* F = female, ** M = male, *** cc = cubic centimeters.
Figure 1Masks in a grade IV patient overlaid on structural T1w images. The yellow boundary shows the total tumor region (a); the area between the green and purple boundaries shows the enhancing tumor region (b); the area within the purple boundary shows necrotic tumor region (c); and the area between the yellow and green boundaries shows the non-enhancing tumor region (d).
Figure 2FW-corrected fractional anisotropy (FAt) and mean free water (FW). The first four box and whisker plots from the left show the mean parameter values in enhancing tumor regions, necrotic tumor regions, non-enhancing tumor regions, and total tumor regions from grade IV patients. The fifth box and whisker plot shows the mean parameter values in total tumor regions from all patients. Significantly different distributions are marked with their corresponding p-values. Boxes with white backgrounds do not differ significantly from other boxes with white backgrounds. Statistics were performed with ANOVA tests and Tukey’s post hoc test at a significance threshold of p < 0.05.
Figure 3Free water (FW) maps across 25 patients. Tumor grades I, II, III, and IV are noted to the top left at each map. Outlines of the total tumor regions (yellow) and necrotic tumor regions (green) are overlaid.
Significances of the effects of free water correction on fractional anisotropy (FA) summary variables across tumor regions (TR) in grade IV patients. p-values are calculated with a paired t-test and a significance threshold of p < 0.05. The p-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method.
| Enhancing TR | Necrotic TR | Non-Enhancing TR | Total TR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 0.013 | 1.0 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Variance | 0.11 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 25th Quantile | <0.001 | 0.27 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
| 75th Quantile | 0.005 | 0.068 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Median | <0.001 | 0.22 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Entropy | 0.010 | 0.018 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Kurtosis | <0.001 | 0.50 | 0.003 | <0.001 |
| Skewness | <0.001 | 0.018 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Figure 4Receiver operator characteristics (ROCs) based on voxel-wise labelling. (a) ROC curves separating necrotic and enhancing tumor regions, and (b) ROC curves separating enhancing and non-enhancing tumor regions. Enhancing tumor region is defined as the true positive and the adjacent necrotic tumor region as the true negative. The patient is the same as the one shown in all single patient examples in this paper. The data were fitted to a logistic regression model and the ROC was computed for free-water (FW)-corrected fractional anisotropy (FA) (blue), non-corrected FA (red), and FW (green). Area under curve (AUC) is rendered in corresponding colors.
Comparison of fractional anisotropy summary variables with and without free water corrections in the non-enhancing tumor region. Reported p-values were computed according to the paired t-test and were adjusted with the Bonferroni method (significance threshold < 0.05).
| Summary Variables from the Non-Enhancing Tumor Volume | Grade I and II (n = 9) | Grade III and IV (n = 16) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean and std. dev | Mean and std. dev | ||||
| Entropy |
| 7.21 ± 0.31 | 0.003 | 7.15 ± 0.15 | <0.001 |
|
| 6.73 ± 0.47 | 6.67 ± 0.35 | |||
| Kurtosis |
| 3.63 ± 1.44 | 0.90 | 3.57 ± 0.89 | <0.001 |
|
| 7.86 ± 5.03 | 7.22 ± 3.76 | |||
| Skewness |
| 0.68 ± 0.51 | 0.004 | 0.59 ± 0.32 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.58 ± 0.73 | 1.43 ± 0.71 | |||
* FAt = free-water-corrected fractional anisotropy, ** FA = non-corrected fractional anisotropy.
Figure 5Images and maps from a grade IV patient: (a) T1w image; (b) T2w image; (c) free-water (FW)-corrected fractional anisotropy (FAt) map; (d) non-corrected fractional anisotropy (FA) map with contours defining non-enhancing tumor; and (e) FW map. Within the non-enhancing region, more heterogeneity is revealed in the FAt map compared to the FA map. The FW map quantitatively highlights FW content.