Citations

PurposeDespite the intra- and intertumoral heterogeneity seen in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), there is little definitive data on the underlying cause of the differences in patient survivals. Serial imaging assessment of tumor growth allows quantification of tumor growth kinetics (TGK) measured in terms of changes in the velocity of radial expansion seen on imaging. Because a systematic study of this entire TGK phenotype—growth before treatment and during each treatment to recurrence —has never been coordinately studied in GBMs, we sought to identify whether patients cluster into discrete groups on the basis of their TGK.Patients and MethodsFrom our multi-institutional database, we identified 48 patients who underwent maximally safe resection followed by radiotherapy with imaging follow-up through the time of recurrence. The patients were then clustered into two groups through a k-means algorithm taking as input only the TGK before and during treatment.ResultsThere was a significant survival difference between the clusters ( P = .003). Paradoxically, patients among the long-lived cluster had significantly larger tumors at diagnosis ( P = .027) and faster growth before treatment ( P = .003) but demonstrated a better response to adjuvant chemotherapy ( P = .048). A predictive model was built to identify which cluster patients would likely fall into on the basis of information that would be available to clinicians immediately after radiotherapy (accuracy, 90.3%).ConclusionDichotomizing the heterogeneity of GBMs into two populations—one faster growing yet more responsive with increased survival and one slower growing yet less responsive with shorter survival—suggests that many patients who receive standard-of-care treatments may get better benefit from select alternative treatments.

Abstract Purpose: Investigate the utility of patient-specific spatial predictions of tumor cell density from a bio-mathematical model. Introduction: Glioblastomas (GBMs) are the most malignant of all primary brain tumors. While it is known there is always a non-detectable portion of the tumor, current techniques of monitoring GBM progression, imaging and initial histological assessment, are not able to reliably estimate the tumor invasion past the enhancing region on T2-Weighted (T2W) imaging. Over the last two decades, a large effort has been made to create a simple patient-specific mathematical model of gliomas. The resulting model, referred to as the Proliferation-Invasion (PI) model, is based on two key parameters, the net growth rate, ρ, and the dispersal coefficient, D. In this model, the ratio of D/ρ is related to degree of invasion and the product D*ρ, is related to the speed of growth. The intuitive understanding provided by this model has been able to provide patient-specific understanding of disease kinetics enabling prediction of outcomes following surgical resection, radiation and the development of a prognostic response metric. Previous literature utilizing this model has been based on the assumption that what is seen on the pretreatment T1-Weighted contrast-enhanced (T1Gd) and T2W, images correspond to an 80% and 16% tumor cell density threshold respectively. This assumption allows for an estimate of D/ρ from a single time point of imaging. While these values were based on extensive experience, for ethical and technical reasons, they have never been rigorously investigated histologically. Recent technological advances have made it possible for surgeons to use an MRI to guide the acquisition of tissue making it possible to know with a good degree of accuracy where on the MR image the histological specimen comes from. Methods: Model Calibration : To estimate D/ρ for each patient, we assume abnormalities on the T1Gd and T2W images correspond to an 80% and 16% tumor cell density threshold respectively. We then utilize a Bayesian calibration approach based on adaptive grid refinement while holding the velocity constant to find the most likely value of D/ρ to match the observed radial measurements. Three-Dimensional Density Maps : Given a gray/white segmentation and an estimate for D/ρ, we can build a tumor cell density prediction in the patient's anatomy using the Eikonal equations and the modified Fast Marching Method (FMM) algorithm presented by Konukoglu et al. Patient Cohort : Eighteen patients were recruited with clinically suspected GBM undergoing preoperative stereotactic MRI for surgical resection with IRB approval Barrow Neurological Institute and Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Surgical Biopsy : Pre-operative conventional MRI, including T1Gd and T2W, was utilized to guide stereotactic biopsies. An average of 5–6 tissue specimens were acquired from each tumor by using stereotactic surgical localization, following the smallest possible diameter craniotomies to minimize brain shift. Histological Analysis : 4 μm tissue sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) for neuropathology review. H&E slides were reviewed by a neuropathologist. The percent tumor nuclei in the field was estimated. Results and Conclusion: Our analysis showed that the intuitive ordering of diffuse to nodular tumor profiles from the PI model is consistent with the histologic data. Further, utilizing the histologic data, limitations to a universal threshold cutoff of the T2/FLAIR region are specified and a better threshold cutoff value is suggested. We hope that this paper will lead to more studies of this kind resulting in more accurate ways to predict the spatial distribution of GBM tumor cells from medical imaging. Such advances could revolutionize surgical procedures and radiation therapy and may enable additional insights into tumor kinetic differences meaningful for treatment. Citation Format: Andrea Hawkins-Daarud, Lauren DeGirolamo, Joshua Jacobs, Kamala Clark-Swanson, Jennifer M. Eschbacher, Kris A. Smith, Peter Nakaji, Leslie C. Baxter, John P. Karis, Teresa Wu, J. Ross Mitchell, Jing Li, Leland Hu, Kristin R. Swanson. Histologic evidence for a bio-mathematical model of glioblastoma invasion. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Engineering and Physical Sciences in Oncology; 2016 Jun 25-28; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(2 Suppl):Abstract nr A08.