A Pilot Study of Multidimensional Diffusion MRI for Assessment of Tissue Heterogeneity in Prostate Cancer.
Journal
Investigative radiology
ISSN: 1536-0210
Titre abrégé: Invest Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0045377
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2021
01 12 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
29
5
2021
medline:
15
4
2022
entrez:
28
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objectives of this exploratory study were to investigate the feasibility of multidimensional diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MddMRI) in assessing diffusion heterogeneity at both a macroscopic and microscopic level in prostate cancer (PCa). Informed consent was obtained from 46 subjects who underwent 3.0-T prostate multiparametric MRI, complemented with a prototype spin echo-based MddMRI sequence in this institutional review board-approved study. Prostate cancer tumors and comparative normal tissue from each patient were contoured on both apparent diffusion coefficient and MddMRI-derived mean diffusivity (MD) maps (from which microscopic diffusion heterogeneity [MKi] and microscopic diffusion anisotropy were derived) using 3D Slicer. The discriminative ability of MddMRI-derived parameters to differentiate PCa from normal tissue was determined using the Friedman test. To determine if tumor diffusion heterogeneity is similar on macroscopic and microscopic scales, the linear association between SD of MD and mean MKi was estimated using robust regression (bisquare weighting). Hypothesis testing was 2 tailed; P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All MddMRI-derived parameters could distinguish tumor from normal tissue in the fixed-effects analysis (P < 0.0001). Tumor MKi was higher (P < 0.05) compared with normal tissue (median, 0.40; interquartile range, 0.29-0.52 vs 0.20-0.18; 0.25), as was tumor microscopic diffusion anisotropy (0.55; 0.36-0.81 vs 0.20-0.15; 0.28). The MKi could not be predicted (no significant association) by SD of MD. There was a significant correlation between tumor volume and SD of MD (R2 = 0.50, slope = 0.008 μm2/ms per millimeter, P < 0.001) but not between tumor volume and MKi. This explorative study demonstrates that MddMRI provides novel information on MKi and microscopic anisotropy, which differ from measures at the macroscopic level. MddMRI has the potential to characterize tumor tissue heterogeneity at different spatial scales.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34049334
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000796
pii: 00004424-202112000-00008
pmc: PMC8626531
mid: NIHMS1714517
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
845-853Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA241817
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : P41 EB015898
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01 MH074794
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R01 EB030539
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : P41 EB028741
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : P41 EB015902
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: F.M.F., C.M.T., and S.E.M. are funded through NIH P41EB 015898, NIH P41EB 028741, and NIH R01CA241817. F.S. and C.-F.W. are funded through NIH P41EB 015902. For the remaining authors, no conflicts or sources of funding were declared.
Références
Tolkach Y, Kristiansen G. The heterogeneity of prostate cancer: a practical approach. Pathobiology . 2018;85:108–116.
Liu W, Xie CC, Thomas CY, et al. Genetic markers associated with early cancer-specific mortality following prostatectomy. Cancer . 2013;119:2405–2412.
Vos EK, Kobus T, Litjens GJS, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating low-grade from high-grade prostate cancer. Invest Radiol . 2015;50:490–497.
Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology . 2011;259:775–784.
Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, et al. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging . 2011;33:167–172.
Rosenkrantz AB, Triolo MJ, Melamed J, et al. Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging . 2014;41:708–714.
Hassanzadeh E, Alessandrino F, Olubiyi OI, et al. Comparison of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient parameters with prostate imaging reporting and data system V2 assessment for detection of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) . 2018;43:1237–1244.
Alessandrino F, Taghipour M, Hassanzadeh E, et al. Predictive role of PI-RADSv2 and ADC parameters in differentiating Gleason pattern 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) . 2019;44:279–285.
Cobelli FD, Taghipour M, Hassanzadeh E, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value and ratio as noninvasive potential biomarkers to predict prostate cancer grading: comparison with prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Roentgenol . 2015;204:550–557.
Woo S, Kim SY, Cho JY, et al. Preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer aggressiveness: using ADC and ADC ratio in determining Gleason score. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2016;207:114–120.
Chen L, Liu M, Bao J, et al. The correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumor cellularity in patients: a meta-analysis. PLoS One . 2013;8:e79008.
Selnæs KM, Vettukattil R, Bertilsson H, et al. Tissue microstructure is linked to MRI parameters and metabolite levels in prostate cancer. Front Oncol . 2016;6:146.
Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2—sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology . 2008;249:900–908.
Gibbs P, Liney GP, Pickles MD, et al. Correlation of ADC and T2 measurements with cell density in prostate cancer at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol . 2009;44:572–576.
Lemberskiy G, Rosenkrantz AB, Veraart J, et al. Time-dependent diffusion in prostate cancer. Invest Radiol . 2017;52:405–411.
Aksit Ciris P, Chiou J-YG, Glazer DI, et al. Accelerated segmented diffusion-weighted prostate imaging for higher resolution, higher geometric fidelity, and multi-b perfusion estimation. Invest Radiol . 2019;54:238–246.
Johnston EW, Bonet-Carne E, Ferizi U, et al. VERDICT MRI for prostate cancer: intracellular volume fraction versus apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology . 2019;291:391–397.
Panagiotaki E, Chan RW, Dikaios N, et al. Microstructural characterization of normal and malignant human prostate tissue with vascular, extracellular, and restricted diffusion for cytometry in tumours magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol . 2015;50:218–227.
Chatterjee A, Bourne RM, Wang S, et al. Diagnosis of prostate cancer with noninvasive estimation of prostate tissue composition by using hybrid multidimensional MR imaging: a feasibility study. Radiology . 2018;287:864–873.
Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, et al. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med . 2005;53:1432–1440.
Cheung MM, Hui ES, Chan KC, et al. Does diffusion kurtosis imaging lead to better neural tissue characterization? A rodent brain maturation study. Neuroimage . 2009;45:386–392.
Van Cauter S, Veraart J, Sijbers J, et al. Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology . 2012;263:492–501.
Eriksson S, Lasic S, Topgaard D. Isotropic diffusion weighting in PGSE NMR by magic-angle spinning of the q-vector. J Magn Reson . 2013;226:13–18.
Westin C-F, Knutsson H, Pasternak O, et al. Q-space trajectory imaging for multidimensional diffusion MRI of the human brain. Neuroimage . 2016;135:345–362.
Lampinen B, Szczepankiewicz F, Mårtensson J, et al. Towards unconstrained compartment modeling in white matter using diffusion-relaxation MRI with tensor-valued diffusion encoding. Magn Reson Med . 2020;84:1605–1623.
Tax CMW, Szczepankiewicz F, Nilsson M, et al. The dot-compartment revealed? Diffusion MRI with ultra-strong gradients and spherical tensor encoding in the living human brain. Neuroimage . 2020;210:116534.
Nilsson M, Szczepankiewicz F, Brabec J, et al. Tensor-valued diffusion MRI in under 3 minutes: an initial survey of microscopic anisotropy and tissue heterogeneity in intracranial tumors. Magn Reson Med . 2020;83:608–620.
Glazer DI, Hassanzadeh E, Fedorov A, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3T for prostate cancer: correlation with tumor cell density and percentage Gleason pattern on whole mount pathology. Abdom Radiol (NY) . 2017;42:918–925.
Greenland NY, Cowan JE, Zhang L, et al. Expansile cribriform Gleason pattern 4 has histopathologic and molecular features of aggressiveness and greater risk of biochemical failure compared to glomerulation Gleason pattern 4. Prostate . 2020;80:653–659.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol . 2016;69:16–40.
Szczepankiewicz F, Sjölund J, Ståhlberg F, et al. Tensor-valued diffusion encoding for diffusional variance decomposition (DIVIDE): technical feasibility in clinical MRI systems. PLoS One . 2019;14:e0214238.
Basser PJ, Mattiello J, LeBihan D. MR diffusion tensor spectroscopy and imaging. Biophys J . 1994;66:259–267.
Szczepankiewicz F, van Westen D, Englund E, et al. The link between diffusion MRI and tumor heterogeneity: mapping cell eccentricity and density by diffusional variance decomposition (DIVIDE). Neuroimage . 2016;142:522–532.
Sjölund J, Szczepankiewicz F, Nilsson M, et al. Constrained optimization of gradient waveforms for generalized diffusion encoding. J Magn Reson . 2015;261:157–168.
Szczepankiewicz F, Westin C, Nilsson M. Maxwell-compensated design of asymmetric gradient waveforms for tensor-valued diffusion encoding. Magn Reson Med . 2019;82:1424–1437.
Szczepankiewicz F, Westin CF, Nilsson M. Gradient waveform design for tensor-valued encoding in diffusion MRI. J Neurosci Methods . 2021;348:109007.
Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, et al. 3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magn Reson Imaging . 2012;30:1323–1341.
Fedorov A, Vangel MG, Tempany CM, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: repeatability of volume and apparent diffusion coefficient quantification. Invest Radiol . 2017;52:538–546.
Hricak H, Jeffrey RB, Dooms GC, et al. Evaluation of prostate size: a comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Urol Radiol . 1987;9:1–8.
Langkilde F, Kobus T, Fedorov A, et al. Evaluation of fitting models for prostate tissue characterization using extended-range b-factor diffusion-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med . 2018;79:2346–2358.
Suo S, Chen X, Wu L, et al. Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging . 2014;32:421–427.
Bourne RM, Kurniawan N, Cowin G, et al. Microscopic diffusivity compartmentation in formalin-fixed prostate tissue. Magn Reson Med . 2012;68:614–620.
Wang X, Hielscher T, Radtke JP, et al. Comparison of single-scanner single-protocol quantitative ADC measurements to ADC ratios to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol . 2021;136:109538.
Fennessy FM, Fedorov A, Penzkofer T, et al. Quantitative pharmacokinetic analysis of prostate cancer DCE-MRI at 3T: comparison of two arterial input functions on cancer detection with digitized whole mount histopathological validation. Magn Reson Imaging . 2015;33:886–894.
Trivedi H, Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, et al. Use of patient-specific MRI-based prostate mold for validation of multiparametric MRI in localization of prostate cancer. Urology . 2012;79:233–239.
Henriques RN, Jespersen SN, Shemesh N. Correlation tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage . 2020;211:116605.
Jespersen SN, Olesen JL, Ianuş A, et al. Effects of nongaussian diffusion on ‘isotropic diffusion’ measurements: an ex-vivo microimaging and simulation study. J Magn Reson . 2019;300:84–94.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of prostate imaging Reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol . 2019;76:340–351. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033