Evaluation of three‑dimensional arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging for the pathological investigation of musculoskeletal tumors

Xu,Lingbin; Xu,Leiming; Zhu,Haidong

doi:10.3892/etm.2018.6030

Evaluation of three‑dimensional arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging for the pathological investigation of musculoskeletal tumors

Authors:
- Lingbin Xu
- Leiming Xu
- Haidong Zhu
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiology, Ningbo Medical Center Lihuili Eastern Hospital Taipei Medical University Ningbo Medical Center, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315040, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310000, P.R. China
Published online on: April 3, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6030
Pages: 5029-5034

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study aimed to assess the clinical utility of three‑dimensional arterial spin labeling (3D‑ASL) perfusion imaging in discriminating between benign, intermediate and malignant musculoskeletal tumors, as well as to analyze the correlation between tumor blood flow (TBF) and microvessel density (MVD). 3D‑ASL was performed on 44 patients with musculoskeletal tumor using a 3.0‑T magnetic resonance system to obtain TBF values prior to surgery. TBF was independently measured by two radiologists. The TBF values of different groups were compared by one‑way analysis of variance. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was applied to assess the threshold and diagnostic reliability of TBF. Immunohistochemical staining of tumor specimens was performed using a cluster of differentiation 34 monoclonal antibody to calculate MVD counts. The correlation between TBF and MVD counts was analyzed using correlative analysis. Pathology results for a total of 44 cases were obtained by surgery. Good interobserver agreement was found for the TBF values independently determined by the two radiologists (intra‑class correlation coefficient test, 0.891; P<0.05). TBF and MVD values in the malignant group were significantly higher compared with that of the benign, and intermediate groups. No significant difference was found between the TBF and MVD values of the benign, and intermediate groups. According to the ROC analysis, the area under the curve was largest (0.951) when 45.5 ml/min/100 g was considered as the TBF cut‑off value in the diagnosis. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 90.5 and 100%, respectively. Additionally, a significant positive correlation was found between TBF and MVD (r, 0.784; P<0.05). The results of the present study suggest that 3D‑ASL is valuable in discriminating between benign, intermediate and malignant musculoskeletal tumors. 3D‑ASL may be utilized to evaluate angiogenesis in musculoskeletal tumors in vivo.

View Figures

View References

1	Campanacci M: Bone and soft tissue tumours. New York: Springer-Verlag; pp. 199–232. 1999
2	Weeden S, Grimer RJ, Cannon SR, Taminiau AH and Uscinska BM: European Osteosarcoma, Intergroup: The effect of local recurrence on survival in resected osteosarcoma. Eur J Cancer. 37:39–46. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Marulanda GA, Henderson ER, Johnson DA, Letson GD and Cheong D: Orthopaedic surgery options for the treatment of primary osteosarcoma. Cancer Control. 15:13–20. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Grimer RJ, Taminiau AM and Cannon SR: Surgical Subcommitte of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup: Surgical outcomes in osteosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 84:395–400. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Bradley CJ, Yabroff KR, Dahman B, Feuer EJ, Mariotto A and Brown ML: Productivity costs of cancer mortality in the United States: 2000–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 100:1763–1770. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Kransdorf MJ and Murphey MD: Radiologic evaluation of soft-tissue masses: A current perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 175:575–587. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Siegel MJ: Magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal soft tissue masses. Radiol Clin North Am. 39:701–720. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Wang CK, Li CW, Hsieh TJ, Chien SH, Liu GC and Tsai KB: Characteriztion of bone and soft tissue tumors with in vivo 1H-MR spectroscopy: Initial results. Radiology. 232:599–605. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Johansen R, Jensen LR, Rydland J, Goa PE, Kvistad KA, Bathen TF, Axelson DE, Lundgren S and Gribbestad IS: Predicting survival and early clinical response to primary chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced breast cancer using DCE-MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 29:1300–1307. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Liu Q, Hu T, He L, Huang X, Tian X, Zhang H, He L, Pu W, Zhang L, Sun H, et al: Genetic targeting of sprouting angiogenesis using Apln-CreER. Nat Commun. 6:60202015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Fukumura D and Jain RK: Imaging angiogenesis and the microenvironment. APMIS. 116:695–715. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Rak JW, St Croix BD and Kerbel RS: Consequences of angiogenesis for tumor progression, metastasis and cancer therapy. Anticancer Drugs. 6:3–18. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Folkman J: What is the evidence that tumors are angiogenesis dependent? J Natl Cancer Inst. 82:4–6. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Weidner N, Folkma J, Pozza F, Bevilacqua P, Allred EN, Moore DH, Meli S and Gasparini G: Tumor angiogenesis: A new significant and independent prognostic indicator in early-stage breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 84:1875–1887. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Flecher CD, Unni KK and Merten F: World Health Organization classification of tumousPathology and genetics of tumors of soft tissue and bone. IARC Press; Lyon: pp. 2–10. 2002
16	Carmeliet P and Jain RK: Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature. 407:249–257. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Fukumura D, Duda DG, Munn LL and Jain RK: Tumor microvasculature and microenvironment: Novel insights through intravital imaging in pre-clinical models. Microcirculation. 17:206–225. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Rak JW, St Croix BD and Kerbel RS: Consequences of angiogenesis for tumor progression, metastasis and cancer therapy. Anticancer Drugs. 6:3–18. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Bose S, Lesser ML, Norton L and Rosen PP: Immunophenotype of intraductal carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 120:81–85. 1996.PubMed/NCBI
20	Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretière JM, Meunier M, Lucidarme O, Tardivon AA, Rochard F, Vanel D, Neuenschwander S and Arriagada R: Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 196:415–419. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Schlemmer HP, Merkle J, Grobholz R, Jaeger T, Michel MS, Werner A, Rabe J and van Kaick G: Can pre-operative contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging for prostate cancer predict microvessel density in prostatectomy specimens? Eur Radiol. 14:309–317. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Marković O, Marisavljević D, Cemerikić V, Vidović A, Perunicić M, Todorović M, Elezović I and Colović M: Expression of VEGF and microvessel density in patients with multiple myeloma: Clinical and prognostic significance. Med Oncol. 25:451–457. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Luczynska E, Gasinska A, Blencharz P, Stelmach A, Jereczek-Fossa BA and Reinfuss M: Value of perfusion CT parameters, microvessl density and VEGF expression in differentiation of benign and malignant prostate tumours. Pol J Pathol. 65:229–236. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Tozer GM: Measuring tumour vascular response to antivascular and antiangiogenic drugs. Br J Radiol. 76:S23–S35. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Li Y, Yang ZG, Chen TW, Chen HJ, Sun JY and Lu YR: Peripheral lung carcinoma: Correlation of angiogenesis and first-pass perfusion parameters of 64-detector row CT. Lung Cancer. 61:44–53. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Gordon Y, Partovi S, Müller-Eschner M, Amarteifio E, Bäuerle T, Weber MA, Kauczor HU and Rengier F: Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: Fundamentals and application to the evaluation of the peripheral perfusion. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 4:147–164. 2014.PubMed/NCBI
27	Loizides A, Peer S, Plaikner M, Djurdjevic T and Gruber H: Perfusion pattern of musculoskeletal masses using contrast-enhanced ultrasound: A helpful tool for characterisation? Eur Radiol. 22:1803–1811. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Wu WC, Wang J, Detre JA, Ratcliffe SJ and Floyd TF: Transit delay and flow quantification in muscle with continuous arterial spin labeling perfusion-MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 28:445–452. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Zhang Z, Meng Q, Gao Z, Cai H, Ye Z and Wu H: Evaluation of angiogenesis of VX2 soft tissue tumor by arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging. Chin J Radiol. 10:1084–1088. 2010.
30	Bivard A, Krishnamurthy V, Stanwell P, Levi C, Spratt NJ, Davis S and Parsons M: Arterial spin labeling versus bolus-tracking perfusion in hyperacute stroke. Stroke. 45:127–133. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Wolf RL, Wang J, Wang S, Melhem ER, O'Rourke DM, Judy KD and Detre JA: Grading of CNS neoplasms using continuous arterial spin labeled perfusion MR imaging at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 22:475–482. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Koizumi S, Sakai N, Kawaji H, Takehara Y, Yamashita S, Sakahara H, Baba S, Hiramatsu H, Sameshima T and Namba H: Pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling reflects vascular density and differentiates angiomatous meningiomas from non-angiomatous meningiomas. J Neuroonncol. 121:549–556. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar