| Literature DB >> 35210476 |
W Jeffrey Zabel1, Nader Allam2, Warren D Foltz3,4, Costel Flueraru5, Edward Taylor3,4, I Alex Vitkin2,3,4.
Abstract
Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is emerging as a valuable tool for non-invasive volumetric monitoring of the tumor vascular status and its therapeutic response. However, clinical utility of DCE-MRI is challenged by uncertainty in its ability to quantify the tumor microvasculature ([Formula: see text] scale) given its relatively poor spatial resolution (mm scale at best). To address this challenge, we directly compared DCE-MRI parameter maps with co-registered micron-scale-resolution speckle variance optical coherence tomography (svOCT) microvascular images in a window chamber tumor mouse model. Both semi and fully quantitative (Toft's model) DCE-MRI metrics were tested for correlation with microvascular svOCT biomarkers. svOCT's derived vascular volume fraction (VVF) and the mean distance to nearest vessel ([Formula: see text]) metrics were correlated with DCE-MRI vascular biomarkers such as time to peak contrast enhancement ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] respectively, [Formula: see text] for both), the area under the gadolinium-time concentration curve ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] respectively, [Formula: see text] for both) and [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] respectively, [Formula: see text] for both). Several other correlated micro-macro vascular metric pairs were also noted. The microvascular insights afforded by svOCT may help improve the clinical utility of DCE-MRI for tissue functional status assessment and therapeutic response monitoring applications.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35210476 PMCID: PMC8873467 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07000-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1MR-compatible plastic window chamber mouse model. 3D rendering of top (A) and bottom (B) surface of MR compatible plastic window chamber designed in Autodesk Fusion 360 CAD software version 2.0.12160 (Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA). Divots for fiducial marker placement are marked by the orange circles in (A). (C) Plastic window chamber on a tumor bearing mouse.
Figure 2Brightfield, fluorescence, and svOCT imaging of a well vascularized tumor. (A) Brightfield image of window chamber with white dotted line indicating the field of view of the svOCT image. (B) Corresponding DsRed fluorescence image to indicate tumor cell viability. (C) svOCT average intensity projection with tumor boundary delineated by the blue line. (D) Segmented depth encoded vasculature within blue tumor boundary line. (E) 3D rendering of segmented tumor vasculature. (C)–(E) were generated using MATLAB R2020A software (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA).
Figure 3Co-registered macro DCE-MRI to micro svOCT vascular correlations. (A) -weighted structural MRI scan of the window chamber with tumor delineated by the red contour. (B) parameter map of the tumor, averaged over two depth slices (total depth of 1 mm to correspond with svOCT’s imaging penetration), in units of min−1 indicated by the colour bar. (C) svOCT segmented depth-encoded vasculature coregistered to (B). The grey dotted line in (B) and (C) shows one position of the sliding window VOI with numbered edges that correspond to the number locations in (D) and (E). The various semi-quantitative and quantitative MR vascular metrics in the resulting DCE-MRI voxels (8 voxels in this example) (D) are directly compared to microvascular biomarkers derived from the corresponding svOCT 3D microvascular map (E). The VOI then slides throughout the delineated tumor contour, with such analysis repeated at all positions. (B)–(E) were generated using MATLAB R2020A software (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA).
Healthy vs. tumor tissue quantification by svOCT and DCE-MRI.
| Tumor | Healthy | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| svOCT Vascular Metrics | Vascular Volume Fraction, VVF | |||
| Mean Distance to Nearest Vessel, | ||||
| DCE-MRI Semi-Quantitative Metrics | Area Under the Curve, AUC [mM | |||
| Maximum Enhancement, ME [mM] | ||||
| Time to Peak, TTP [ | ||||
| Wash in Rate, WIR [ | ||||
| DCE-MRI Fully-Quantitative Metrics | Volume Transfer Constant, | |||
| Fractional Volume of EES, | 0.63 | |||
| Rate Constant from EES to Intravascular Space, |
Figure 4Healthy vs. tumor tissue quantification by svOCT and DCE-MRI. Significant differences in the microvasculature and corresponding DCE-MRI concentration–time curves were observed when comparing healthy and tumor tissue. (A) segmented depth-encoded svOCT microvascular map of healthy (bare skin) mouse and corresponding DCE-MRI Gd time concentration curve (B). (C) and (D) present analogous results for a tumor-bearing mouse. Gd time concentration curves and svOCT vascular metrics were calculated within a 1 volume of interest (blue dotted line) shown in (A) and (C). The solid blue line in (C) shows the tumor contour and the red line in (B) and (D) are the Toft’s model fits to the data. (A) and (C) were generated using MATLAB R2020A software (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA).
Spearman correlation coefficients for svOCT and DCE-MRI comparisons.
| DCE-MRI: Semi-Quantitative Metrics | DCE-MRI: Fully-Quantitative (Toft’s Model) Metrics | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | TTP | WIR | ME | |||||
| svOCT: Vascular Volume Fraction (VVF) | 0.50 | − 0.81 | 0.59 | 0.28 | 0.64 | − 0.21 | 0.71 | |
| svOCT: Mean Distance to Nearest Vessel ( | − 0.48 | 0.83 | − 0.57 | − 0.26 | − 0.61 | 0.26 | − 0.70 | |
Figure 5Notable ‘macro-to-micro’ pairs. (A) and (B) are correlation plots for MR’s metric with svOCT-derived microvascular biomarkers VVF and respectively. (C) and (D) show analogous results for MR’s TTP metric. Each point represents the values obtained from the co-registered DCE-MRI and svOCT datasets for a single position of the sliding window VOI. values = Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Open and solid symbols = healthy (n = 1) and tumor-bearing (n = 7) mice, respectively.