Characterization of active and infiltrative tumorous subregions from normal tissue in brain gliomas using multiparametric MRI

Abstract

Background Targeted localized biopsies and treatments for diffuse gliomas rely on accurate identification of tissue subregions, for which current MRI techniques lack specificity. Purpose To explore the complementary and competitive roles of a variety of conventional and quantitative MRI methods for distinguishing subregions of brain gliomas. Study Type Prospective. Population Fifty-one tissue specimens were collected using image-guided localized biopsy surgery from 10 patients with newly diagnosed gliomas. Field Strength/Sequence Conventional and quantitative MR images consisting of pre- and postcontrast T1w, T2w, T2-FLAIR, T2-relaxometry, DWI, DTI, IVIM, and DSC-MRI were acquired preoperatively at 3T. Assessment Biopsy specimens were histopathologically attributed to glioma tissue subregion categories of active tumor (AT), infiltrative edema (IE), and normal tissue (NT) subregions. For each tissue sample, a feature vector comprising 15 MRI-based parameters was derived from preoperative images and assessed by a machine learning algorithm to determine the best multiparametric feature combination for characterizing the tissue subregions. Statistical Tests For discrimination of AT, IE, and NT subregions, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and for pairwise tissue subregion differentiation, Tukey honest significant difference, and Games-Howell tests were applied (P < 0.05). Cross-validated feature selection and classification methods were implemented for identification of accurate multiparametric MRI parameter combination. Results After exclusion of 17 tissue specimens, 34 samples (AT = 6, IE = 20, and NT = 8) were considered for analysis. Highest accuracies and statistically significant differences for discrimination of IE from NT and AT from NT were observed for diffusion-based parameters (AUCs >90%), and the perfusion-derived parameter as the most accurate feature in distinguishing IE from AT. A combination of “CBV, MD, T2_ISO, FLAIR” parameters showed high diagnostic performance for identification of the three subregions (AUC ~90%). Data Conclusion Integration of a few quantitative along with conventional MRI parameters may provide a potential multiparametric imaging biomarker for predicting the histopathologically proven glioma tissue subregions. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 3

Diffusion Tensor Imaging Reveals Microstructural Heterogeneity of Normal-Appearing White Matter and Related Cognitive Dysfunction in Glioma Patients

“…DTI was used to investigate glioma as systemic brain disease by voxel-wise comparison of extralesional WM of patients and individually matched healthy controls. Prior lesion masking excluded any macroanatomically apparent tumor lesions including perifocal T2- or T1-weighted signal alterations such as caused by edema or perifocal tumor infiltration, which are known to be associated with altered diffusion properties (34, 35).…”

Radiomic Nomogram: Pretreatment Evaluation of Local Recurrence in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma based on MR Imaging

“…The traditional MRI, such as T1-weighted (T1-w) imaging and T2-weighted (T2-w) imaging, is mainly based on the anatomy of tumor invasion and does not consider intratumor heterogeneity so that they failed to evaluate the risk of individual patient based on specific intratumor characteristics 17, 18. Many functional MRI sequences have been reported, such as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI), intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), could reflect intratumor features in different cancers 19, 20. However, they are not as regular sequences for NPC patients, because the inherent anatomic constraints could cause all kinds of artifacts.…”

GliMR: Cross-Border Collaborations to Promote Advanced MRI Biomarkers for Glioma

“…Further inconsistencies in imaging are caused by the broad range of approaches for subsequent image analysis and interpretation [8,38]. This is especially problematic if optimal in vivo characterisation of glioma should include multiple conventional and advanced MRI parameters [44].…”