Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

ADC histograms predict response to anti-angiogenic therapy in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma

  • Functional Neuroradiology
  • Published:
Neuroradiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to evaluate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps to distinguish anti-vascular and anti-tumor effects in the course of anti-angiogenic treatment of recurrent high-grade gliomas (rHGG) as compared to standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods

This retrospective study analyzed ADC maps from diffusion-weighted MRI in 14 rHGG patients during bevacizumab/irinotecan (B/I) therapy. Applying image segmentation, volumes of contrast-enhanced lesions in T1 sequences and of hyperintense T2 lesions (hT2) were calculated. hT2 were defined as regions of interest (ROI) and registered to corresponding ADC maps (hT2-ADC). Histograms were calculated from hT2-ADC ROIs. Thereafter, histogram asymmetry termed “skewness” was calculated and compared to progression-free survival (PFS) as defined by the Response Assessment Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group criteria.

Results

At 8–12 weeks follow-up, seven (50%) patients showed a partial response, three (21.4%) patients were stable, and four (28.6%) patients progressed according to RANO criteria. hT2-ADC histograms demonstrated statistically significant changes in skewness in relation to PFS at 6 months. Patients with increasing skewness (n = 11) following B/I therapy had significantly shorter PFS than did patients with decreasing or stable skewness values (n = 3, median percentage change in skewness 54% versus −3%, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

In rHGG patients, the change in ADC histogram skewness may be predictive for treatment response early in the course of anti-angiogenic therapy and more sensitive than treatment assessment based solely on RANO criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wong ET, Hess KR, Gleason MJ et al (1999) Outcomes and prognostic factors in recurrent glioma patients enrolled onto phase II clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 17:2572–2578

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lamborn KR, Yung WK, Chang SM et al (2008) Progression-free survival: an important end point in evaluating therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 10:162–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE 2nd et al (2007) Bevacizumab plus irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 25:4722–4729

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr, Cairncross JG (1990) Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 8:1277–1280

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA et al (2010) Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 28:1963–1972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jain R, Scarpace LM, Ellika S et al (2009) Imaging response criteria for recurrent gliomas treated with bevacizumab: role of diffusion weighted imaging as an imaging biomarker. J Neurooncol 96:423–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 168:497–505

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11:102–125

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Patterson DM, Padhani AR, Collins DJ (2008) Technology insight: water diffusion MRI—a potential new biomarker of response to cancer therapy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 5:220–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Vandecaveye V et al (2005) Effect of vascular targeting agent in rat tumor model: dynamic contrast-enhanced versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 237:492–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hamstra DA, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD (2007) Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: a biomarker for treatment response in oncology. J Clin Oncol 25:4104–4109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Paldino MJ, Barboriak D, Desjardins A, Friedman HS, Vredenburgh JJ (2009) Repeatability of quantitative parameters derived from diffusion tensor imaging in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:1199–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pope WB, Kim HJ, Huo J et al (2009) Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: ADC histogram analysis predicts response to bevacizumab treatment. Radiology 252:182–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jain R, Scarpace LM, Ellika S et al (2009) Imaging response criteria for recurrent gliomas treated with bevacizumab: role of diffusion weighted imaging as an imaging biomarker. J Neurooncol 96(3):423–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guzman R, Altrichter S, El-Koussy M et al (2008) Contribution of the apparent diffusion coefficient in perilesional edema for the assessment of brain tumors. J Neuroradiol 35:224–229

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ et al (2005) Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 352:987–996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC et al (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31:1116–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dempsey MF, Condon BR, Hadley DM (2005) Measurement of tumor "size" in recurrent malignant glioma: 1D, 2D, or 3D? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:770–776

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. de Groot JF, Fuller G, Kumar AJ et al (2010) Tumor invasion after treatment of glioblastoma with bevacizumab: radiographic and pathologic correlation in humans and mice. Neuro Oncol 12:233–242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pieper S LB, Schroeder W, Kikinis R (2006) The NA-MIC kit: ITK, VTK, pipelines, grids and 3D slicer as an open platform for the medical image computing community. Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro 1:698–701

  21. Pieper S LB, Schroeder W, Kikinis R (2010) www.3dslicer.org

  22. Ballman KV, Buckner JC, Brown PD et al (2007) The relationship between six-month progression-free survival and 12-month overall survival end points for phase II trials in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro Oncol 9:29–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sinha G (2008) Expensive cancer drugs with modest benefit ignite debate over solutions. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1347–1349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ et al (2008) K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 359:1757–1765

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Oldenhuis CN, Oosting SF, Gietema JA, de Vries EG (2008) Prognostic versus predictive value of biomarkers in oncology. Eur J Cancer 44:946–953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller JC, Pien HH, Sahani D, Sorensen AG, Thrall JH (2005) Imaging angiogenesis: applications and potential for drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:172–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pope WB, Lai A, Nghiemphu P, Mischel P, Cloughesy TF (2006) MRI in patients with high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. Neurology 66:1258–1260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE 2nd et al (2007) Phase II trial of bevacizumab and irinotecan in recurrent malignant glioma. Clin Cancer Res 13:1253–1259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Batchelor TT, Sorensen AG, di Tomaso E et al (2007) AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Cell 11:83–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Jain RK, Duda DG, Clark JW, Loeffler JS (2006) Lessons from phase III clinical trials on anti-VEGF therapy for cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 3:24–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Park JW, Kerbel RS, Kelloff GJ et al (2004) Rationale for biomarkers and surrogate end points in mechanism-driven oncology drug development. Clin Cancer Res 10:3885–3896

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Thoeny HC, Ross BD (2010) Predicting and monitoring cancer treatment response with diffusion-weighted MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:2–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee KC, Hall DE, Hoff BA et al (2006) Dynamic imaging of emerging resistance during cancer therapy. Cancer Res 66:4687–4692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kono K, Inoue Y, Nakayama K et al (2001) The role of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22:1081–1088

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chenevert TL, Stegman LD, Taylor JM et al (2000) Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: an early surrogate marker of therapeutic efficacy in brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:2029–2036

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Yoshikawa MI, Ohsumi S, Sugata S et al (2008) Relation between cancer cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient values using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. Radiat Med 26:222–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL et al (2002) Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:172–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Squillaci E, Manenti G, Cova M et al (2004) Correlation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging with cellularity of renal tumours. Anticancer Res 24:4175–4179

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Manenti G, Di Roma M, Mancino S et al (2008) Malignant renal neoplasms: correlation between ADC values and cellularity in diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Radiol Med 113:199–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hayashida Y, Yakushiji T, Awai K et al (2006) Monitoring therapeutic responses of primary bone tumors by diffusion-weighted image: initial results. Eur Radiol 16:2637–2643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Higano S, Yun X, Kumabe T et al (2006) Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology 241:839–846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Murakami R, Sugahara T, Nakamura H et al (2007) Malignant supratentorial astrocytoma treated with postoperative radiation therapy: prognostic value of pretreatment quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 243:493–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Reddy JS, Mishra AM, Behari S et al (2006) The role of diffusion-weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of intracranial cystic mass lesions: a report of 147 lesions. Surg Neurol 66:246–250, discussion 250–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gruber SK ML, Medabalmi P, Gruber DB, Golfinos J, Parker E, Narayana A (2010) Change in pattern of relapse in newly diagnosed high-grade glioma following bevacizumab therapy. J Clin Oncol 28:15s (suppl; abstr 2020)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Norden AD, Young GS, Setayesh K et al (2008) Bevacizumab for recurrent malignant gliomas: efficacy, toxicity, and patterns of recurrence. Neurology 70:779–787

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Rubenstein JL, Kim J, Ozawa T et al (2000) Anti-VEGF antibody treatment of glioblastoma prolongs survival but results in increased vascular cooption. Neoplasia 2:306–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Wen PY, Zhang WT, Jain RK (2008) Response criteria for glioma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 5:634–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chen W, Silverman DH (2008) Advances in evaluation of primary brain tumors. Semin Nucl Med 38:240–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kendall (1998) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Skewness.html

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Mary Margreiter for the critical reading and helpful comments. M. Nowosielski holds a DOC-FORTE Fellowship from the Austrian Academy of Science at the Department of Neurology, Innsbruck Medical University. Özgür Güler’s work was funded by the Austrian Science Foundation (Project 20604-B13).

Conflict of Interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Martha Nowosielski, Gerd Tinkhauser, Günther Stockhammer & Markus Hutterer

  2. Department of Radiology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria

    Wolfgang Recheis, Michael Schocke & Thaddaeus Gotwald

  3. Department of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria

    Georg Goebel

  4. 4D Visualization Laboratory, University Clinic of Oto-, Rhino- and Laryngology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria

    Özgür Güler

  5. Department of Neurosurgery, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria

    Herwig Kostron

  6. Department of Neurology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg–Christian Doppler Hospital, Salzburg, Austria

    Markus Hutterer

Authors
  1. Martha Nowosielski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wolfgang Recheis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Georg Goebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Özgür Güler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gerd Tinkhauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Herwig Kostron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Schocke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Thaddaeus Gotwald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Günther Stockhammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Markus Hutterer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martha Nowosielski.

Additional information

Originality and presentations

The authors confirm the originality of this study. Parts of the study were presented at the EANO Meeting 2010 (Sept. 2010, Maastricht)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nowosielski, M., Recheis, W., Goebel, G. et al. ADC histograms predict response to anti-angiogenic therapy in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. Neuroradiology 53, 291–302 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-010-0808-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-010-0808-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation