Quantitative MRI for analysis of peritumoral edema in malignant gliomas

Background and purpose Damage to the blood-brain barrier with subsequent contrast enhancement is a hallmark of glioblastoma. Non-enhancing tumor invasion into the peritumoral edema is, however, not usually visible on conventional magnetic resonance imaging. New quantitative techniques using relaxometry offer additional information about tissue properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate longitudinal relaxation R1, transverse relaxation R2, and proton density in the peritumoral edema in a group of patients with malignant glioma before surgery to assess whether relaxometry can detect changes not visible on conventional images. Methods In a prospective study, 24 patients with suspected malignant glioma were examined before surgery. A standard MRI protocol was used with the addition of a quantitative MR method (MAGIC), which measured R1, R2, and proton density. The diagnosis of malignant glioma was confirmed after biopsy/surgery. In 19 patients synthetic MR images were then created from the MAGIC scan, and ROIs were placed in the peritumoral edema to obtain the quantitative values. Dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion was used to obtain cerebral blood volume (rCBV) data of the peritumoral edema. Voxel-based statistical analysis was performed using a mixed linear model. Results R1, R2, and rCBV decrease with increasing distance from the contrast-enhancing part of the tumor. There is a significant increase in R1 gradient after contrast agent injection (P < .0001). There is a heterogeneous pattern of relaxation values in the peritumoral edema adjacent to the contrast-enhancing part of the tumor. Conclusion Quantitative analysis with relaxometry of peritumoral edema in malignant gliomas detects tissue changes not visualized on conventional MR images. The finding of decreasing R1 and R2 means shorter relaxation times closer to the tumor, which could reflect tumor invasion into the peritumoral edema. However, these findings need to be validated in the future.

[1]  S. Brem,et al.  Differentiating Tumor Progression from Pseudoprogression in Patients with Glioblastomas Using Diffusion Tensor Imaging and Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast MRI , 2015, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[2]  J. Barnholtz-Sloan,et al.  The epidemiology of glioma in adults: a "state of the science" review. , 2014, Neuro-oncology.

[3]  Pieter Wesseling,et al.  Diffuse glioma growth: a guerilla war , 2007, Acta Neuropathologica.

[4]  Alina Jurcoane,et al.  Elevated peritumoural rCBV values as a mean to differentiate metastases from high-grade gliomas , 2010, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[5]  L. Morgan,et al.  The epidemiology of glioma in adults: a "state of the science" review. , 2015, Neuro-oncology.

[6]  Alina Jurcoane,et al.  Quantitative T2 mapping of recurrent glioblastoma under bevacizumab improves monitoring for non-enhancing tumor progression and predicts overall survival. , 2013, Neuro-oncology.

[7]  Kenneth Hess,et al.  The influence of maximum safe resection of glioblastoma on survival in 1229 patients: Can we do better than gross-total resection? , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery.

[8]  Albert Lai,et al.  Quantification of edema reduction using differential quantitative T2 (DQT2) relaxometry mapping in recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab , 2011, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.

[9]  S. Price,et al.  Extent of resection of peritumoral diffusion tensor imaging-detected abnormality as a predictor of survival in adult glioblastoma patients. , 2017, Journal of neurosurgery.

[10]  Qun Wang,et al.  Role of magnetic resonance spectroscopy for the differentiation of recurrent glioma from radiation necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2014, European journal of radiology.

[11]  Timothy A. Chan,et al.  MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. , 2013, Clinical imaging.

[12]  Luke Macyszyn,et al.  Pattern analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging demonstrates peritumoral tissue heterogeneity. , 2014, Radiology.

[13]  M. Westphal,et al.  Signal intensity in T2’ magnetic resonance imaging is related to brain glioma grade , 2011, European Radiology.

[14]  G. Biros,et al.  Imaging Surrogates of Infiltration Obtained Via Multiparametric Imaging Pattern Analysis Predict Subsequent Location of Recurrence of Glioblastoma. , 2016, Neurosurgery.

[15]  L. Flors,et al.  Gradient of apparent diffusion coefficient values in peritumoral edema helps in differentiation of glioblastoma from solitary metastatic lesions. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  Amy S Nowacki,et al.  Residual tumor volume versus extent of resection: predictors of survival after surgery for glioblastoma. , 2014, Journal of neurosurgery.

[17]  Elna-Marie Larsson,et al.  Extension of diffuse low-grade gliomas beyond radiological borders as shown by the coregistration of histopathological and magnetic resonance imaging data. , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery.

[18]  A. Omuro,et al.  Diffusion and Perfusion MRI to Differentiate Treatment-Related Changes Including Pseudoprogression from Recurrent Tumors in High-Grade Gliomas with Histopathologic Evidence , 2015, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[19]  P. Lundberg,et al.  Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: Optimization for clinical usage , 2008, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[20]  Mitchel S Berger,et al.  Regional variation in histopathologic features of tumor specimens from treatment-naive glioblastoma correlates with anatomic and physiologic MR Imaging. , 2012, Neuro-oncology.

[21]  R. Deichmann,et al.  Quantitative T1 and T2 mapping in recurrent glioblastomas under bevacizumab: earlier detection of tumor progression compared to conventional MRI , 2014, Neuroradiology.

[22]  Henry Brem,et al.  Establishing percent resection and residual volume thresholds affecting survival and recurrence for patients with newly diagnosed intracranial glioblastoma. , 2014, Neuro-oncology.

[23]  J. Mosser,et al.  Characterizing the peritumoral brain zone in glioblastoma: a multidisciplinary analysis , 2015, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.

[24]  J. Boxerman,et al.  Physiologic MRI for assessment of response to therapy and prognosis in glioblastoma. , 2016, Neuro-oncology.

[25]  Dieta Brandsma,et al.  Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. , 2008, The Lancet. Oncology.

[26]  Sean C L Deoni,et al.  Quantitative Relaxometry of the Brain , 2010, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[27]  Eudocia Q Lee,et al.  Assessment of Brain Tumor Response: RANO and Its Offspring , 2016, Current Treatment Options in Oncology.

[28]  Benjamin M Ellingson,et al.  Longitudinal DSC-MRI for Distinguishing Tumor Recurrence From Pseudoprogression in Patients With a High-grade Glioma , 2017, American journal of clinical oncology.

[29]  A G Sorensen,et al.  Pseudoprogression and Pseudoresponse: Imaging Challenges in the Assessment of Posttreatment Glioma , 2011, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[30]  Scott N. Hwang,et al.  Outcome prediction in patients with glioblastoma by using imaging, clinical, and genomic biomarkers: focus on the nonenhancing component of the tumor. , 2014, Radiology.