Emerging techniques and technologies in brain tumor imaging

Neuro-Oncology

Volumn 16, Issue , 2014, Pages vii12-vii23

  Ellingson, Benjamin M ^a,b   Bendszus, Martin ^c   Sorensen, A Gregory ^d   Pope, Whitney B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Engineering IV   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^d SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Brain tumors; Diffusion MRI; Imaging biomarker; MRI; Perfusion MRI; PET; Response assessment; T1 subtraction.

Indexed keywords

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CANCER STAGING; GLIOMA; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; TRENDS;

BRAIN NEOPLASMS; GLIOMA; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS;

EID: 84965187096     PISSN: 15228517     EISSN: 15235866     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nou221     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Wintersperger BJ, Runge VM, Biswas J, et al. Brain tumor enhancement in MR imaging at 3 Tesla: comparison of SNR and CNR gain using TSE and GRE techniques. Invest Radiol. 2007; 42(8):558–563.
2. Akeson P, Vikhoff B, Stahlberg F, et al. Brain lesion contrast in MR imaging. Dependence on field strength and concentration of gadodiamide injection in patients and phantoms. Acta Radiol. 1997;38(1):14–18.
3. Akeson P, Nordstrom CH, Holtas S. Time-dependency in brain lesion enhancement with gadodiamide injection. Acta Radiol. 1997;38(1): 19–24.
4. Vos MJ, Uitdehaag BM, Barkhof F, et al. Interobserver variability in the radiological assessment of response to chemotherapy in glioma. Neurology. 2003;60(5):826–830.
5. Shah GD, Kesari S, Xu R, et al. Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8(1):38–46.
6. Dempsey MF, Condon BR, Hadley DM. Measurement of tumor “size” in recurrent malignant glioma: 1D, 2D, or 3D? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(4):770–776.
7. Provenzale JM, Ison C, Delong D. Bidimensional measurements in brain tumors: assessment of interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):W515–W522.
8. Warren KE, Patronas N, Aikin AA, et al. Comparison of one-, two-, and three-dimensional measurements of childhood brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(18):1401–1405.
9. Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, et al. Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8(2):156–165.
10. Gallego Perez-Larraya J, Lahutte M, Petrirena G, et al. Response assessment in recurrent glioblastoma treated with irinotecan-bevacizumab: comparative analysis of the Macdonald, RECIST, RANO, and RECIST + F criteria. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(5):667–673.
11. Lavin PT, Flowerdew G. Studies in variation associated with the measurement of solid tumors. Cancer. 1980;46(5):1286–1290.
12. Fornage BD. Measuring masses on cross-sectional images. Radiology. 1993;187(1):289.
13. Ellingson BM, Cloughesy TF, Lai A, et al. Quantitative volumetric analysis of conventional MRI response in recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13(4):401–409.
14. Boxerman JL, Zhang Z, Safriel Y, et al. Early post-bevacizumab progression on contrast-enhanced MRI as a prognostic marker for overall survival in recurrent glioblastoma: results from the ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625 Central Reader Study. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15(7): 945–954.
15. Ellingson BM, Kim HJ, Woodworth DC, et al. Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted subtraction maps improve tumor delineation and predict survival in a multicenter clinical trial of recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Radiology. 2014;271(1): 200–210.
16. Huang RY, Rahman R, Hamdan A, et al. Recurrent glioblastoma: Volumetric assessment and stratification of patient survival with early posttreatment magnetic resonance imaging in patients treated with bevacizumab. Cancer. 2013;119(19):3479–3488.
17. Filippi M, Marciano N, Capra R, et al. The effect of imprecise repositioning on lesion volume measurements in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 1997;49(1):274–276.
18. Rohde S, Massberg M, Reinhardt J, et al. [Impact of technical and morphological factors on the precision of software-based MR tumor volumetry: a phantom study]. Rofo. 2008;180(7):654–661.
19. des Plantes Z. Subtraktion. Stuttgart: Thieme Verlag, 1961.
20. Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD, Lee JHE, D.A. R, Imaging AMCoB. ACR-SSR Practice Guideline for the Performance and Interpretation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of Bone and Soft Tissue TumorsRevised 2010 - Resolution #18.
21. Suto Y, Caner BE, Tamagawa Y, et al. Subtracted synthetic images in Gd-DTPA enhanced MR. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1989;13(5): 925–928.
22. Lloyd GA, Barker PG, Phelps PD. Subtraction gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance for head and neck imaging. Br J Radiol. 1993;66(781):12–16.
23. Lee VS, Flyer MA, Weinreb JC, et al. Image subtraction in gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 167(6):1427–1432.
24. Gaul HP, Wallace CJ, Crawley AP. Reverse enhancement of hemorrhagic brain lesions on postcontrast MR: detection with digital image subtraction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17(9): 1675–1680.
25. Melhem ER, Mehta NR. Dynamic T1-weighted spin-echo MR imaging: the role of digital subtraction in the demonstration of enhancing brain lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9(4): 503–508.
26. Kaus MR, Warfield SK, Nabavi A, et al. Automated segmentation of MR images of brain tumors. Radiology. 2001;218(2):586–591.
27. Salman YM. Modified technique for volumetric brain tumor measurements. J Biomed Sci Eng. 2009;2:16–19.
28. Mazzara GP, Velthuizen RP, Pearlman JL, et al. Brain tumor target volume determination for radiation treatment planning through automated MRI segmentation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 59(1):300–312.
29. Weltens C, Menten J, Feron M, et al. Interobserver variations in gross tumor volume delineation of brain tumors on computed tomography and impact of magnetic resonance imaging. Radiother Oncol. 2001;60(1):49–59.
30. Yamamoto M, Nagata Y, Okajima K, et al. Differences in target outline delineation from CT scans of brain tumours using different methods and different observers. Radiother Oncol. 1999; 50(2):151–156.
31. Khoo VS, Adams EJ, Saran F, et al. A Comparison of clinical target volumes determined by CT and MRI for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000; 46(5):1309–1317.
32. Ellingson BM, Malkin MG, Rand SD, et al. Validation of functional diffusion maps (fDMs) as a biomarker for human glioma cellularity. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(3):538–548.
33. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999; 9(1):53–60.
34. Chenevert TL, Stegman LD, Taylor JM, et al. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: an early surrogate marker of therapeutic efficacy in brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(24): 2029–2036.
35. Kidwell CS, Alger JR, Di Salle F, et al. Diffusion MRI in patients with transient ischemic attacks. Stroke. 1999;30(6):1174–1180.
36. Verheul HB, Balazs R, Berkelbach van der Sprenkel JW, et al. Comparison of diffusion-weighted MRI with changes in cell volume in a rat model of brain injury. NMR Biomed. 1994;7(1–2): 96–100.
37. Farrell CJ, Hoh BL, Pisculli ML, et al. Limitations of diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis of postoperative infections. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(3):577–583; discussion 577–583.
38. Lam WW, Poon WS, Metreweli C. Diffusion MR imaging in glioma: does it have any role in the pre-operation determination of grading of glioma? Clin Radiol. 2002;57(3):219–225.
39. Kono K, Inoue Y, Nakayama K, et al. The role of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(6):1081–1088.
40. Smith JS, Cha S, Mayo MC, et al. Serial diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cases of glioma: distinguishing tumor recurrence from postresection injury. J Neurosurg. 2005;103(3): 428–438.
41. Chenevert TL, McKeever PE, Ross BD. Monitoring early response of experimental brain tumors to therapy using diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Cancer Res. 1997;3(9): 1457–1466.
42. Pope WB, Kim HJ, Huo J, et al. Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: ADC histogram analysis predicts response to bevacizumab treatment. Radiology. 2009;252(1):182–189.
43. Pope WB, Qiao XJ, Kim HJ, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient histogram analysis stratifies progression-free and overall survival in patients with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab: a multi-center study. J Neurooncol. 2012;108(3):491–498.
44. Chenevert TL, Galban CJ, Ivancevic MK, et al. Diffusion coefficient measurement using a temperature-controlled fluid for quality control in multicenter studies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34(4): 983–987.
45. Rosen BR, Belliveau JW, Vevea JM, et al. Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med. 1990;14(2):249–265.
46. Barajas RF Jr, Phillips JJ, Parvataneni R, et al. Regional variation in histopathologic features of tumor specimens from treatment-naive glioblastoma correlates with anatomic and physiologic MR Imaging. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(7):942–954.
47. Tofts PS. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7(1):91–101.
48. Detre JA, Zhang W, Roberts DA, et al. Tissue specific perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling. NMR Biomed. 1994;7(1–2): 75–82.
49. Mangla R, Singh G, Ziegelitz D, et al. Changes in relative cerebral blood volume 1 month after radiation-temozolomide therapy can help predict overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology. 2010;256(2):575–584.
50. Law M, Young RJ, Babb JS, et al. Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2008;247(2):490–498.
51. Cao Y, Tsien CI, Nagesh V, et al. Survival prediction in high-grade gliomas by MRI perfusion before and during early stage of RT [corrected]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64(3):876–885.
52. Barajas RF Jr, Chang JS, Segal MR, et al. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2009;253(2): 486–496.
53. Hu LS, Baxter LC, Smith KA, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(3):552–558.
54. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Tomiguchi S, et al. Posttherapeutic intraaxial brain tumor: the value of perfusion-sensitive contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating tumor recurrence from nonneoplastic contrast-enhancing tissue. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21(5): 901–909.
55. Sawlani RN, Raizer J, Horowitz SW, et al. Glioblastoma: a method for predicting response to antiangiogenic chemotherapy by using MR perfusion imaging-pilot study. Radiology. 2010;255(2):622–628.
56. Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Zhang WT, et al. A “vascular normalization index” as potential mechanistic biomarker to predict survival after a single dose of cediranib in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Cancer Res. 2009;69(13):5296–5300.
57. Sorensen AG. Perfusion MR imaging: moving forward. Radiology. 2008;249(2):416–417.
58. Calamante F. Bolus dispersion issues related to the quantification of perfusion MRI data. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22(6):718–722.
59. Paulson ES, Schmainda KM. Comparison of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR methods: recommendations for measuring relative cerebral blood volume in brain tumors. Radiology. 2008;249(2):601–613.
60. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, et al. Perfusion-sensitive MR imaging of gliomas: comparison between gradient-echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001; 22(7):1306–1315.
61. Thilmann O, Larsson EM, Bjorkman-Burtscher IM, et al. Effects of echo time variation on perfusion assessment using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging at 3 tesla. Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;22(7):929–935.
62. Henry ME, Kaufman MJ, Lange N, et al. Test-retest reliability of DSC MRI CBV mapping in healthy volunteers. Neuroreport. 2001;12(8): 1567–1569.
63. Shin W, Horowitz S, Ragin A, et al. Quantitative cerebral perfusion using dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI: evaluation of reproducibility and age- and gender-dependence with fully automatic image postprocessing algorithm. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58(6):1232–1241.
64. Jackson A, Kassner A, Zhu XP, et al. Reproducibility of T2* blood volume and vascular tortuosity maps in cerebral gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;14(5):510–516.
65. Ellingson BM, Zaw T, Cloughesy TF, et al. Comparison between intensity normalization techniques for dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC)-MRI estimates of cerebral blood volume (CBV) in human gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(6):1472–1477.
66. Alger JR, Schaewe TJ, Lai TC, et al. Contrast agent dose effects in cerebral dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29(1):52–64.
67. Knutsson L, Lindgren E, Ahlgren A, et al. Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI with a prebolus contrast agent administration design for improved absolute quantification of perfusion. Magn Reson Med. 2013. doi: 10.1002/mrm.25006.
68. Hu LS, Baxter LC, Pinnaduwage DS, et al. Optimized preload leakage-correction methods to improve the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in posttreatment gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(1):40–48.
69. Boxerman JL, Prah DE, Paulson ES, et al. The Role of preload and leakage correction in gadolinium-based cerebral blood volume estimation determined by comparison with MION as a criterion standard. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(6):1081–1087.
70. Boxerman JL, Schmainda KM, Weisskoff RM. Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(4): 859–867.
71. Calamante F, Gadian DG, Connelly A. Quantification of perfusion using bolus tracking magnetic resonance imaging in stroke: assumptions, limitations, and potential implications for clinical use. Stroke. 2002;33(4):1146–1151.
72. Wu O, Ostergaard L, Weisskoff RM, et al. Tracer arrival timing-insensitive technique for estimating flow in MR perfusion-weighted imaging using singular value decomposition with a block-circulant deconvolution matrix. Magn Reson Med. 2003;50(1):164–174.
73. Mouridsen K, Friston K, Hjort N, et al. Bayesian estimation of cerebral perfusion using a physiological model of microvasculature. Neuroimage. 2006;33(2):570–579.
74. Mukherjee P, Kang HC, Videen TO, et al. Measurement of cerebral blood flow in chronic carotid occlusive disease: comparison of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging with positron emission tomography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003; 24(5):862–871.
75. Bedekar D, Jensen T, Schmainda KM. Standardization of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) image maps for ease of both inter- and intrapatient comparisons. Magn Reson Med. 2010;64(3): 907–913.
76. Wetzel SG, Cha S, Johnson G, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology. 2002;224(3): 797–803.
77. Committee DMT. DCE MRI Quantification Profile 2012.
78. OMIM. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man Database. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim. Accessed February 28, 1998.
79. Ferl GZ, Xu L, Friesenhahn M, et al. An automated method for nonparametric kinetic analysis of clinical DCE-MRI data: application to glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63(5):1366–1375.
80. Roberts C, Issa B, Stone A, et al. Comparative study into the robustness of compartmental modeling and model-free analysis in DCE-MRI studies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006; 23(4):554–563.
81. Jackson A, Jayson GC, Li KL, et al. Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in newly presenting glioma. Br J Radiol. 2003;76(903):153–162.
82. Di Chiro G, DeLaPaz RL, Brooks RA, et al. Glucose utilization of cerebral gliomas measured by [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography. Neurology. 1982;32(12): 1323–1329.
83. Isselbacher KJ. Sugar and amino acid transport by cells in culture-differences between normal and malignant cells. N Engl J Med. 1972;286(17):929–933.
84. Souba WW. Glutamine and cancer. Ann Surg. 1993;218(6): 715–728.
85. Lilja A, Bergstrom K, Hartvig P, et al. Dynamic study of supratentorial gliomas with L-methyl-11C-methionine and positron emission tomography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1985;6(4): 505–514.
86. Go KG, Keuter EJ, Kamman RL, et al. Contribution of magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging and L-[1–11C]tyrosine positron emission tomography to localization of cerebral gliomas for biopsy. Neurosurgery. 1994;34(6):994–1002; discussion 1002.
87. Popperl G, Gotz C, Rachinger W, et al. Value of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)- L-tyrosine PET for the diagnosis of recurrent glioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(11): 1464–1470.
88. Heiss WD, Wienhard K, Wagner R, et al. F-Dopa as an amino acid tracer to detect brain tumors. J Nucl Med. 1996;37(7): 1180–1182.
89. Beuthien-Baumann B, Bredow J, Burchert W, et al. 3-O-methyl-6-[18F]fluoro-L-DOPA and its evaluation in brain tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(7):1004–1008.
90. Becherer A, Karanikas G, Szabo M, et al. Brain tumour imaging with PET: a comparison between [18F]fluorodopa and [11C]methionine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(11):1561–1567.
91. Pauleit D, Floeth F, Hamacher K, et al. O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET combined with MRI improves the diagnostic assessment of cerebral gliomas. Brain. 2005;128(Pt 3):678–687.
92. Fueger BJ, Czernin J, Cloughesy T, et al. Correlation of 6–18F-fluoro-L-dopa PET uptake with proliferation and tumor grade in newly diagnosed and recurrent gliomas. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(10): 1532–1538.
93. Dunet V, Rossier C, Buck A, et al. Performance of 18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine (18F-FET) PET for the differential diagnosis of primary brain tumor: a systematic review and Metaanalysis. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(2):207–214.
94. Singhal T, Narayanan TK, Jacobs MP, et al. 11C-methionine PET for grading and prognostication in gliomas: a comparison study with 18F-FDG PET and contrast enhancement on MRI. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(11):1709–1715.
95. Cameron IL, Smith NK, Pool TB, et al. Intracellular concentration of sodium and other elements as related to mitogenesis and oncogenesis in vivo. Cancer Res. 1980;40(5):1493–1500.
96. Ouwerkerk R, Bleich KB, Gillen JS, et al. Tissue sodium concentration in human brain tumors as measured with 23Na MR imaging. Radiology. 2003;227(2):529–537.
97. Nagel AM, Bock M, Hartmann C, et al. The potential of relaxation-weighted sodium magnetic resonance imaging as demonstrated on brain tumors. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(9):539–547.
98. Wen Z, Hu S, Huang F, et al. MR imaging of high-grade brain tumors using endogenous protein and peptide-based contrast. Neuroimage. 2010;51(2):616–622.
99. Jin T, Wang P, Zong X, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the Amine-Proton EXchange (APEX) dependent contrast. Neuroimage. 2012;59(2):1218–1227.
100. Sun PZ, Benner T, Copen WA, et al. Early experience of translating pH-weighted MRI to image human subjects at 3 Tesla. Stroke. 2010;41(10 Suppl):S147–S151.