Advertisement

Amide proton transfer imaging might predict survival and IDH mutation status in high-grade glioma

  • Bio Joo
  • Kyunghwa Han
  • Sung Soo AhnEmail author
  • Yoon Seong Choi
  • Jong Hee Chang
  • Seok-Gu Kang
  • Se Hoon Kim
  • Jinyuan Zhou
  • Seung-Koo Lee
Magnetic Resonance
  • 95 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the utility of amide proton transfer (APT) imaging as an imaging biomarker to predict prognosis and molecular marker status in high-grade glioma (HGG, WHO grade III/IV).

Methods

We included 71 patients with pathologically diagnosed HGG who underwent preoperative MRI with APT imaging. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) according to APT signal, clinical factors, MGMT methylation status, and IDH mutation status were analyzed. Multivariate Cox regression models with and without APT signal data were constructed. Model performance was compared using the integrated AUC (iAUC). Associations between APT signals and molecular markers were assessed using the Mann-Whitney test.

Results

High APT signal was a significant predictor for poor OS (HR = 3.21, 95% CI = 1.62–6.34) and PFS (HR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.33–3.72) on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, high APT signals were an independent predictor of poor OS and PFS when clinical factors alone (OS: HR = 2.89; PFS: HR = 2.13), or in combination with molecular markers (OS: HR = 2.85; PFS: HR = 2.00), were included as covariates. The incremental prognostic value of APT signals was significant for OS and PFS. IDH-wild type was significantly associated with high APT signals (p = 0.001) when compared to IDH-mutant; however, there was no difference based on MGMT methylation status (p = 0.208).

Conclusion

High APT signal was a significant predictor of poor prognosis in HGG. APT data showed significant incremental prognostic value over clinical prognostic factors and molecular markers and may also predict IDH mutation status.

Key Points

• Amide proton transfer (APT) imaging is a promising prognostic marker of high-grade glioma.

• APT signals were significantly higher in IDH-wild type compared to IDH-mutant high-grade glioma.

• APT imaging may be valuable for preoperative screening and treatment guidance.

Keywords

Glioma Magnetic resonance imaging Isocitrate dehydrogenase Prognosis 

Abbreviations

APT

Amide proton transfer

AUC

Area under the curve

CCRT

Concurrent chemoradiation therapy

HGG

High-grade glioma

iAUC

Integrated area under the curve

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficients

IDH

Isocitrate dehydrogenase

KPS

Karnofsky performance status

MGMT

O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

MTRasym

Magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry

OS

Overall survival

PCR

Polymerase chain reaction

PFS

Progression free survival

ROI

Region of interests

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ha-Kyu Jeong (Korea Basic Science Institute, Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea) for his help with protocol optimization and for the valuable suggestions.

Funding

This research received funding from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (2014R1A1A1002716, 2017R1D1A1B03030440) and National Institutes of Health (P41 EB015909, R01 CA166171, R01 EB009731).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Professor Seung-Koo Lee, MD, PhD, from Yonsei University College of Medicine.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Kyunghwa Han, PhD

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, College of Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Informed consent

The institutional review board waived the requirement to obtain informed patient consent for this retrospective study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Ricard D, Idbaih A, Ducray F, Lahutte M, Hoang-Xuan K, Delattre JY (2012) Primary brain tumours in adults. Lancet 379:1984–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stupp R, Brada M, van den Bent MJ, Tonn JC, Pentheroudakis G (2014) High-grade glioma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 25:iii93–iii101Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lamborn KR, Chang SM, Prados MD (2004) Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis. Neuro Oncol 6:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mirimanoff RO, Gorlia T, Mason W et al (2006) Radiotherapy and temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis of the EORTC 26981/22981-NCIC CE3 phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 24:2563–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown TJ, Brennan MC, Li M et al (2016) Association of the extent of resection with survival in glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2:1460–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zou P, Xu H, Chen P et al (2013) IDH1/IDH2 mutations define the prognosis and molecular profiles of patients with gliomas: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 8:e68782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weller M, Tabatabai G, Kästner B et al (2015) MGMT promoter methylation is a strong prognostic biomarker for benefit from dose-intensified temozolomide rechallenge in progressive glioblastoma: the DIRECTOR trial. Clin Cancer Res 21:2057–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leu S, von Felten S, Frank S et al (2013) IDH/MGMT-driven molecular classification of low-grade glioma is a strong predictor for long-term survival. Neuro Oncol 15:469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang F, Yang P, Zhang C et al (2017) Stratification according to recursive partitioning analysis predicts outcome in newly diagnosed glioblastomas. Oncotarget 8:42974–42982Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brat DJ, Verhaak RG, Aldape KD et al (2015) Comprehensive, integrative genomic analysis of diffuse lower-grade gliomas. N Engl J Med 372:2481–2498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ludwig K, Kornblum HI (2017) Molecular markers in glioma. J Neurooncol 134:505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tateishi K, Wakimoto H, Cahill DP (2017) IDH1 mutation and World Health Organization 2016 diagnostic criteria for adult diffuse gliomas: advances in surgical strategy. Neurosurgery 64:134–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siegal T (2016) Clinical relevance of prognostic and predictive molecular markers in gliomas. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21359-0_4:91-108
  14. 14.
    Yan H, Parsons DW, Jin G et al (2009) IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. N Engl J Med 360:765–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller JJ, Shih HA, Andronesi OC, Cahill DP (2017) Isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant glioma: evolving clinical and therapeutic implications. Cancer 123:4535–4546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G et al (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131:803–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waitkus MS, Diplas BH, Yan H (2016) Isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations in gliomas. Neuro Oncol 18:16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baldewpersad Tewarie NM, Burgers IA, Dawood Y et al (2013) NADP+ -dependent IDH1 R132 mutation and its relevance for glioma patient survival. Med Hypotheses 80:728–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hegi ME, Diserens A-C, Gorlia T et al (2005) MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352:997–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pope WB, Sayre J, Perlina A, Villablanca JP, Mischel PS, Cloughesy TF (2005) MR imaging correlates of survival in patients with high-grade gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:2466–2474Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hirai T, Murakami R, Nakamura H et al (2008) Prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging of high-grade astrocytomas: long-term follow-up study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29:1505–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choi YS, Ahn SS, Kim DW et al (2016) Incremental prognostic value of ADC histogram analysis over MGMT promoter methylation status in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology 281:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ulyte A, Katsaros VK, Liouta E et al (2016) Prognostic value of preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion parameters for high-grade glioma patients. Neuroradiology 58:1197–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ward KM, Aletras AH, Balaban RS (2000) A new class of contrast agents for MRI based on proton chemical exchange dependent saturation transfer (CEST). J Magn Reson 143:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou J, Lal B, Wilson DA, Laterra J, van Zijl PC (2003) Amide proton transfer (APT) contrast for imaging of brain tumors. Magn Reson Med 50:1120–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jones CK, Schlosser MJ, van Zijl PC, Pomper MG, Golay X, Zhou J (2006) Amide proton transfer imaging of human brain tumors at 3T. Magn Reson Med 56:585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Choi YS, Ahn SS, Lee SK et al (2017) Amide proton transfer imaging to discriminate between low- and high-grade gliomas: added value to apparent diffusion coefficient and relative cerebral blood volume. Eur Radiol 27:3181–3189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Togao O, Yoshiura T, Keupp J et al (2014) Amide proton transfer imaging of adult diffuse gliomas: correlation with histopathological grades. Neuro Oncol 16:441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jiang S, Zou T, Eberhart CG et al (2017) Predicting IDH mutation status in grade II gliomas using amide proton transfer-weighted (APTw) MRI. Magn Reson Med 78:1100–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jiang S, Rui Q, Wang Y et al (2018) Discriminating MGMT promoter methylation status in patients with glioblastoma employing amide proton transfer-weighted MRI metrics. Eur Radiol 28:2115–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paech D, Windschuh J, Oberhollenzer J et al (2018) Assessing the predictability of IDH mutation and MGMT methylation status in glioma patients using relaxation-compensated multi-pool CEST MRI at 7.0 Tesla. Neuro Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noy073
  32. 32.
    Regnery S, Adeberg S, Dreher C et al (2018) Chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI serves as predictor of early progression in glioblastoma patients. Oncotarget 9:28772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim M, Gillen J, Landman BA, Zhou J, van Zijl PC (2009) Water saturation shift referencing (WASSR) for chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) experiments. Magn Reson Med 61:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Choi J, Lee EY, Shin KJ, Minn YK, Kim J, Kim SH (2013) IDH1 mutation analysis in low cellularity specimen: a limitation of diagnostic accuracy and a proposal for the diagnostic procedure. Pathol Res Pract 209:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heagerty PJ, Zheng Y (2005) Survival model predictive accuracy and ROC curves. Biometrics 61:92–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yan K, Fu Z, Yang C et al (2015) Assessing amide proton transfer (APT) MRI contrast origins in 9 L gliosarcoma in the rat brain using proteomic analysis. Mol Imaging Biol 17:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Su C, Liu C, Zhao L et al (2017) Amide proton transfer imaging allows detection of glioma grades and tumor proliferation: comparison with Ki-67 expression and proton MR spectroscopy imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38:1702–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Park JE, Kim HS, Park KJ, Kim SJ, Kim JH, Smith SA (2016) Pre- and posttreatment glioma: comparison of amide proton transfer imaging with MR spectroscopy for biomarkers of tumor proliferation. Radiology 278:514–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Binabaj MM, Bahrami A, ShahidSales S et al (2018) The prognostic value of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. J Cell Physiol 233:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Doll S, Urisman A, Oses-Prieto JA, Arnott D, Burlingame AL (2017) Quantitative proteomics reveals fundamental regulatory differences in oncogenic HRAS and Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1) driven astrocytoma. Mol Cell Proteomics 16:39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reitman ZJ, Jin G, Karoly ED et al (2011) Profiling the effects of isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 mutations on the cellular metabolome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:3270–3275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhou J, Tryggestad E, Wen Z et al (2010) Differentiation between glioma and radiation necrosis using molecular magnetic resonance imaging of endogenous proteins and peptides. Nat Med 17:130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Park JE, Kim HS, Park KJ, Choi CG, Kim SJ (2015) Histogram analysis of amide proton transfer imaging to identify contrast-enhancing low-grade brain tumor that mimics high-grade tumor: increased accuracy of MR perfusion. Radiology 277:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jones CK, Huang A, Xu J et al (2013) Nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) imaging in the human brain at 7T. Neuroimage 77:114–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    van Zijl PC, Yadav NN (2011) Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST): what is in a name and what isn't? Magn Reson Med 65:927–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zaiss M, Windschuh J, Paech D et al (2015) Relaxation-compensated CEST-MRI of the human brain at 7T: unbiased insight into NOE and amide signal changes in human glioblastoma. Neuroimage 112:180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee DH, Heo HY, Zhang K et al (2017) Quantitative assessment of the effects of water proton concentration and water T1 changes on amide proton transfer (APT) and nuclear overhauser enhancement (NOE) MRI: the origin of the APT imaging signal in brain tumor. Magn Reson Med 77:855–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Heo HY, Zhang Y, Lee DH, Hong X, Zhou J (2016) Quantitative assessment of amide proton transfer (APT) and nuclear overhauser enhancement (NOE) imaging with extrapolated semi-solid magnetization transfer reference (EMR) signals: application to a rat glioma model at 4.7 tesla. Magn Reson Med 75:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sakata A, Okada T, Yamamoto A et al (2015) Grading glial tumors with amide proton transfer MR imaging: different analytical approaches. J Neurooncol 122:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hartmann C, Hentschel B, Wick W et al (2010) Patients with IDH1 wild type anaplastic astrocytomas exhibit worse prognosis than IDH1-mutated glioblastomas, and IDH1 mutation status accounts for the unfavorable prognostic effect of higher age: implications for classification of gliomas. Acta Neuropathol 120:707–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bio Joo
    • 1
  • Kyunghwa Han
    • 1
  • Sung Soo Ahn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yoon Seong Choi
    • 1
  • Jong Hee Chang
    • 2
  • Seok-Gu Kang
    • 2
  • Se Hoon Kim
    • 3
  • Jinyuan Zhou
    • 4
  • Seung-Koo Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological ScienceYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of PathologyYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Division of MRI Research, Department of RadiologyJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations