Repeatability of dynamic contrast enhanced vp parameter in healthy subjects and patients with brain tumors
To study the repeatability of plasma volume (vp) extracted from dynamic-contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI in order to define threshold values for significant longitudinal changes, and to assess changes in patients with high-grade-glioma (HGG).
Twenty eight healthy subjects, of which eleven scanned twice, were used to assess the repeatability of vp within the normal-appearing brain tissue and to define threshold values for significant changes based on least-detected-differences (LDD) of mean vp values and histogram comparisons using earth-mover’s-distance (EMD). Sixteen patients with HGG were scanned longitudinally with eight patients scanned before and following bevacizumab therapy. Longitudinal changes were assessed based on defined threshold values in comparison to RANO criteria.
The threshold values for significant changes were: LDD = 0.0024 (ml/100 ml, 21%) for mean vp and EMD = 4.14. In patients, in 20/24 comparisons, no significant longitudinal changes were detected for vp within the normal-appearing brain tissue. Concurring results were obtained between changes in lesion volume (RANO criteria) and LDD or EMD values in cases diagnosed with progressive-disease, yet in about 50% of cases diagnosed with partial-response preliminary results demonstrated significant increase in vp despite significant reductions in lesion volume. In two patients, these changes preceded progression detected at follow-up scans. In general, a good concordance was obtained between LDD and EMD.
This study shows high repeatability of vp and provides threshold values for significant changes in longitudinal assessment of patients with brain tumors. Preliminary results suggest the use of vp-DCE parameter to improve assessment of therapy response in patients with high-grade-glioma.
KeywordsDCE-MRI Least detected changes (LDD) Earth mover’s distance (EMD) Plasma volume (vp) High grade brain tumors
- 2.Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, Cloughesy TF, Sorensen AG, Galanis E, Degroot J, Wick W, Gilbert MR, Lassman AB, Tsien C, Mikkelsen T, Wong ET, Chamberlain MC, Stupp R, Lamborn KR, Vogelbaum MA, van den Bent MJ, Chang SM (2010) Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 28:1963–1972. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Chang SM, Wen PY, Vogelbaum MA, Macdonald DR, van den Bent MJ (2015) Response assessment in neuro-oncology (RANO): more than imaging criteria for malignant glioma. Neuro-Oncol Pract 2:205–209Google Scholar
- 7.Artzi M, Liberman G, Nadav G, Blumenthal DT, Bokstein F, Aizenstein O, Ben Bashat D (2016) Differentiation between treatment-related changes and progressive disease in patients with high grade brain tumors using support vector machine classification based on DCE MRI. J Neuro-oncol 127:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Heye T, Merkle EM, Reiner CS, Davenport MS, Horvath JJ, Feuerlein S, Breault SR, Gall P, Bashir MR, Dale BM (2013) Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part II. Comparison of intra-and interobserver variability with manual region of interest placement versus semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis. Radiology 266:812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Parker GJM, Padhani AR (2003) Quantitative MRI of the brain: measuring changes caused by disease. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- 33.Heye T, Davenport MS, Horvath JJ, Feuerlein S, Breault SR, Bashir MR, Merkle EM, Boll DT (2013) Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part I. Perfusion characteristics in the female pelvis by using multiple computer-aided diagnosis perfusion analysis solutions. Radiology 266:801–811. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Huang W, Li X, Chen Y, Li X, Chang MC, Oborski MJ, Malyarenko DI, Muzi M, Jajamovich GH, Fedorov A, Tudorica A, Gupta SN, Laymon CM, Marro KI, Dyvorne HA, Miller JV, Barbodiak DP, Chenevert TL, Yankeelov TE, Mountz JM, Kinahan PE, Kikinis R, Taouli B, Fennessy F, Kalpathy-Cramer J (2014) Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response: a multicenter data analysis challenge. Transl Oncol 7:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Conte GM, Castellano A, Altabella L, Iadanza A, Cadioli M, Falini A, Anzalone N (2017) Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI in the study of brain gliomas: a comparison of data obtained using different commercial software. La Radiol Med 122:294–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Galbraith SM, Rustin GJ, Lodge MA, Taylor NJ, Stirling JJ, Jameson M, Thompson P, Hough D, Gumbrell L, Padhani AR (2002) Effects of 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid on human tumor microcirculation assessed by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 20:3826–3840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Evelhoch JL, LoRusso PM, He Z, DelProposto Z, Polin L, Corbett TH, Langmuir P, Wheeler C, Stone A, Leadbetter J, Ryan AJ, Blakey DC, Waterton JC (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of the response of murine and human tumors to the vascular-targeting agent ZD6126. Clin Cancer Res 10:3650–3657. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-03-0417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar