Volume 51, Issue 1 pp. 225-233

Original Research

Quantitative vs. semiquantitative assessment of intratumoral susceptibility signals in patients with different grades of glioma

Rupsa Bhattacharjee ME,

Rupsa Bhattacharjee ME

Center for Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, India

Philips Health System, Philips India Limited, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Rakesh Kumar Gupta MD,

Rakesh Kumar Gupta MD

Department of Radiology and Imaging, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Rana Patir MCh,

Rana Patir MCh

Department of Neurosurgery, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Sandeep Vaishya MCh,

Sandeep Vaishya MCh

Department of Neurosurgery, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Suneeta Ahlawat MD,

Suneeta Ahlawat MD

SRL Diagnostics, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Anup Singh PhD,

Corresponding Author

Anup Singh PhD

orcid.org/0000-0001-6744-8326

Center for Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, India

Department of Biomedical Engineering, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Address reprint requests to: A.S., Assistant Professor, Block-II, Room No. 299, Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India, 110016. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Rupsa Bhattacharjee ME,

Rupsa Bhattacharjee ME

Center for Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, India

Philips Health System, Philips India Limited, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Rakesh Kumar Gupta MD,

Rakesh Kumar Gupta MD

Department of Radiology and Imaging, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Rana Patir MCh,

Rana Patir MCh

Department of Neurosurgery, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Sandeep Vaishya MCh,

Sandeep Vaishya MCh

Department of Neurosurgery, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Suneeta Ahlawat MD,

Suneeta Ahlawat MD

SRL Diagnostics, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, India

Search for more papers by this author

Anup Singh PhD,

Corresponding Author

Anup Singh PhD

orcid.org/0000-0001-6744-8326

Center for Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, India

Department of Biomedical Engineering, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

First published: 14 May 2019

https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26786

Citations: 11

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Background

Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) provides vascular information and plays an important role in improving the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative glioma grading. Intratumoral susceptibility signal intensities (ITSS) obtained from SWI has been used in glioma grading. However, the current method for estimation of ITSS is semiquantitative, manual count-dependent, and includes hemorrhage as well as vasculature.

Purpose

To develop a quantitative approach that calculates the vasculature volume within tumors by filtering out the hemorrhage from ITSS using R₂* values and connected component analysis-based segmentation algorithm; to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed ITSS vasculature volume (IVV) for differentiating various grades of glioma; and compare it with reported semiquantitative ITSS approach.

Study Type

Retrospective.

Subjects

Histopathologically confirmed 41 grade IV, 19 grade III, and 15 grade II glioma patients.Field Strength/Sequence: SWI (four echoes: 5.6, 11.8, 18, 24.2 msec) along with conventional MRI sequences (T₂-weighted, T₁-weighted, 3D-fluid-attenuated inversion recovery [FLAIR], and diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]) at 3.0T.

Assessment

R₂* relaxation maps were calculated from multiecho SWI. The R₂* cutoff value for hemorrhage ITSS was determined. A segmentation algorithm was designed, based on this R₂* hemorrhage combined with connected component shape analysis, to quantify the IVV from all slices containing tumor by filtering out hemorrhages. Semiquantitative ITSS scoring as well as total ITSS volume (TIV) including hemorrhages were also calculated.

Statistical Tests

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey–Kramer post-hoc tests were performed to see the difference among the three grades of the tumor (II, III, and IV) in terms of semiquantitative ITSS scoring, TIV, and IVV. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the performance of the three methods individually in discriminating between grades of glioma.

Results

One-way ANOVA showed that only the proposed IVV significantly differentiated different grades of gliomas having visible ITSS. ROC analysis showed that IVV provided the highest AUC for the discrimination of grade II vs. III (0.93), grade III vs. IV (0.98), and grade II vs. IV glioma (0.94). IVV also provided the highest sensitivity and specificity for differentiating grade II vs. III (87.44, 98.41), grade III vs. IV (97.15, 94.12), and grade II vs. IV (98.72, 92.31).

Data Conclusion

The proposed quantitative method segregates hemorrhage from tumor vasculature. It scores above the existing semiquantitative method in terms of ITSS estimation and grading accuracy.

Level of Evidence: 4

Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:225–233.

Supporting Information

References

1Niu G, Chen X. Vascular endothelial growth factor as an anti-angiogenic target for cancer therapy. Curr Drug Targets 2010; 11: 1000–1017.
10.2174/138945010791591395
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Muz B, Puente P, de la Azab F, Azab AK. The role of hypoxia in cancer progression angiogenesis metastasis and resistane to therapy. Hypoxia 2015; 3: 83–92.
10.2147/HP.S93413
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Saini J, Gupta PK, Sahoo P, et al. Differentiation of grade II/III and grade IV glioma by combining T1 contrast-enhanced brain perfusion imaging and susceptibility-weighted quantitative imaging. Neuroradiology 2018; 60: 43–50.
10.1007/s00234-017-1942-8
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Jackson A, Djoukhadar I, Coope DJ. Imaging biomarkers of angiogenesis and the microvascular environment in cerebral tumors. Neurovasc Imaging 2016; 84: 303–325.
10.1007/978-1-4614-9029-6_18
Google Scholar
5Buxton RB. Interpreting oxygenation-based neuroimaging signals: the importance and the challenge of understanding brain oxygen metabolism. Front Neuroenerg 2010; 2: 1–16.
PubMed Google Scholar
6Haller S, Zaharchuk G, Thomas DL, Lovblad KO, Barkhof F, Golay X. Arterial spin labeling perfusion of the brain: Emerging clinical applications. Radiology 2016; 281: 337–356.
10.1148/radiol.2016150789
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Ulyte A, Katsaros VK, Liouta E, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion parameters for high-grade glioma patients. Neuroradiology 2016; 58: 1197–1208.
10.1007/s00234-016-1741-7
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Sahoo P, Gupta PK, Patir R, Vaishya S, Saha I, Gupta RK. Comparison of actual with default hematocrit value in dynamic contrast enhanced MR perfusion quantification in grading of human glioma. Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 34: 1071–1077.
10.1016/j.mri.2016.05.004
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Gotzamanis G, Kocian R, Özbay P. S., et al. In vivo quantification of cerebral r2*-response to graded hyperoxia at 3 tesla. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2015; 5: 1. Published 2015 Jan 30.
10.4103/2156-7514.150439
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Liu Z, Liao H, Yin J, Li Y. Using R2* values to evaluate brain tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: Preliminary results. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 693–702.
10.1007/s00330-013-3057-x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Xu J, Xu H, Zhang W, Zheng J. Contribution of susceptibility- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for grading gliomas. Exp Ther Med 2018; 15: 5113–5118.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Park, M. J., Kim, H. S., Jahng, G. H., Ryu, C. W., Park, S. M., Kim, S. Y. Semiquantitative assessment of intratumoral susceptibility signals using non-contrast-enhanced high-field high-resolution susceptibility-weighted imaging in patients with gliomas: Comparison with MR perfusion imaging. American Journal of Neuroradiology 2009; 30: 1402–1408.
10.3174/ajnr.A1593
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Rauscher A, Sedlacik J, Barth M, Haacke EM, Reichenbach JR. Noninvasive assessment of vascular architecture and function during modulated blood oxygenation using susceptibility weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54: 87–95.
10.1002/mrm.20520
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Mittal S, Wu Z, Neelavalli J, et al. Susceptibility-weighted imaging: technical aspects and clinical applications, Part 2. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 232–252.
10.3174/ajnr.A1461
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Haacke EM, Cheng NYC, House MJ, et al. Imaging iron stores in the brain using magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23: 1–25.
10.1016/j.mri.2004.10.001
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Ide S, Kakeda S, Korogi Y, et al. Delineation of Optic Radiation and Stria of Gennari on High-resolution Phase Difference Enhanced Imaging, Academic Radiology 2012; 19(10): 1283–1289, ISSN 1076–6332.
10.1016/j.acra.2012.05.018
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Haacke EM, Mittal S, Wu Z, Neelavalli J, Cheng YCN. Susceptibility-weighted imaging: Technical aspects and clinical applications, part 1. Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30: 19–30.
10.3174/ajnr.A1400
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18MedCalc Statistical Software Version 14.8.1 (2014) MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium.
Google Scholar
19Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009; 41: 1149–1160.
10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM.
Google Scholar
21Mohammed W, Xunning H, Haibin S, Jingzhi M. Clinical applications of susceptibility-weighted imaging in detecting and grading intracranial gliomas: A review. Cancer Imaging 2013; 13: 186–195.
10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0020
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Pinker K, Noebauer-Huhmann IM, Stavrou I, et al. High-field, high-resolution, susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: Improved image quality by addition of contrast agent and higher field strength in patients with brain tumors. Neuroradiology 2008; 50: 9–16.
10.1007/s00234-007-0298-x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Sehgal V, Delproposto Z, Haacke EM, et al. Clinical applications of neuroimaging with susceptibility-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: 439–450.
10.1002/jmri.20404
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Di Ieva A, Matula C, Grizzi F, Grabner G, Trattnig S, Tschabitscher M. Fractal analysis of the susceptibility weighted imaging patterns in malignant brain tumors during antiangiogenic treatment: Technical report on four cases serially imaged by 7 T magnetic resonance during a period of four weeks. World Neurosurg 2012; 77: 785.e11–21.
10.1016/j.wneu.2011.09.006
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Lorenzo-Valdes M, Sanchez-Ortiz GI, Elkington AG, Mohiaddin RH, Rueckert D. Segmentation of 4D cardiac MR images using a probabilistic atlas and the EM algorithm. Med Image Anal 2004; 8: 255–265.
10.1016/j.media.2004.06.005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Chen J, Amini AA., Quantifying 3-D vascular structures in MRA images using hybrid PDE and geometric deformable models. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2004; 23: 1251–1262.
10.1109/TMI.2004.834612
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume51, Issue1

January 2020

Pages 225-233

Filename	Description
jmri26786-sup-0001-FigureS1.tifTIFF image, 4.2 MB	Supplementary Figure 1 Showing a sample case of chronic hemorrhage A: SWI-magnitude image of the chronic hemorrhage area, B: Calculated R₂^* map, C: and D: Zoomed sections of the rectangular area highlighted in A and B respectively
jmri26786-sup-0002-TableS1.docWord document, 67 KB	Supplementary Table 1 Patient Demographics

Quantitative vs. semiquantitative assessment of intratumoral susceptibility signals in patients with different grades of glioma

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Study Type

Subjects

Assessment

Statistical Tests

Results

Data Conclusion

Supporting Information

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Quantitative vs. semiquantitative assessment of intratumoral susceptibility signals in patients with different grades of glioma

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Study Type

Subjects

Assessment

Statistical Tests

Results

Data Conclusion

Supporting Information

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information