黑料网

Visualizing metabolic; MR imaging; Positron emission tomography

Introduction

Cancer is a complex, dynamic disease characterized by cellular heterogeneity and metabolic aberrations. Understanding the metabolic landscapes within tumors is crucial for devising effective diagnostic and treatment strategies. Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging, coupled with spectroscopy, offers a non-invasive and powerful tool for visualizing these metabolic landscapes in cancer. In this article, we explore the principles and applications of MR imaging in deciphering the intricate metabolic profiles of tumors [1 ].

Ideal utilization of molecular imaging is to dose paint the radiotherapy dose administered to each tumor with reference to positron emission tomography (PET) and to identify the geographic sub regions that drive response to therapy, subsequent resistance, and relapse during treatment failure. However, further work has shown that the interplay between abnormal metabolism, vascularization, and hypoxia expression in tumors may lead to different maps of abnormality depending on the functional pathophysiological readout. In order to select optimal imaging paradigms to guide treatment, a deeper understanding of the underlying biological mechanisms is critical [2]. There is a strong rationale for investigating whether hypoxic regions should be treated with differing radiation doses to well-oxygenated tumors, as well as investigating regional variation based on functional and molecular imaging.

The Metabolic Hallmarks of Cancer

Cancer cells exhibit distinct metabolic characteristics compared to their normal counterparts. One of the most well-known features is the Warburg effect, where cancer cells preferentially rely on glycolysis for energy production even in the presence of oxygen. This altered metabolism results in increased glucose consumption and lactate production, which can be visualized using MR techniques [3].

Imaging Microstructure

Rapid proliferation and change in the morphology of tumors results in a transformation of endogenous cell-architecture such as cell density, membranes, sizes, and fluid pools, leading to altered molecular water diffusion. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) is a noninvasive measurement of water diffusivity that reflects the cell architecture. With increasing cell density, the confining effect of membranes increases and, thus, tumors typically have lower signal on apparent diffusion constant (ADC) maps than healthy cells due to restricted water diffusion. ADC captures fluid volume changes in the intra- and extracellular compartments, and the literature reports an inverse relationship between ADC values and tumor grade. Intra voxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis allows for the separation of diffusion and perfusion parameters from diffusion weighted imaging with multi -values by compartmentalizing fast and slow moving spins [4 ]. Although the efficacy of IVIM in cancer imaging still needs further verification, recent imaging studies have reported promising utilities of IVIM in characterizing various tumor types and assessing therapeutic effects.

Imaging Tumor Heterogeneity

Common tools of cancer research such as DNA sequencing, gene and protein expression, and metabolomics are based on biopsy measurements and the assumption of a homogenous cell population within a tumor. Tumors progressively accumulate genetic mutations and epigenetic alterations. Genetic mutations of cancer cells lead to diversity and heterogeneity, which may favor cooperation for growth and metastasis. Recently, the intratumoral heterogeneity and branched evolution have been investigated in renal cell carcinomas by genome sequencing of multiple spatially separated samples from primary tumors and associated metastatic sites. The metabolic heterogeneity is attributed not only to genetic alteration but also to the adaptation to the hypoxic tumor microenvironment [5 ]. As glycolysis confers a significant growth advantage by producing the required macromolecules as building blocks, lactate can be utilized by oxygenated cancer cells as oxidative fuel, to save the glucose for the more anoxic cells in the center of the tumor. This cooperation between hypoxic and normoxic tumor cells optimizes energy production and allows cells to adapt efficiently to their environmental oxygen condition. With this in mind, there is a considerable research interest to identify and measure both the overall degree of spatial tumor heterogeneity and pinpointing where subpopulations within tumors are responsive to therapy or resistant.

MR Imaging: The Basics

MR imaging is based on the interaction between the magnetic properties of atomic nuclei, primarily hydrogen protons, and a strong magnetic field. When placed in the magnetic field and subjected to radiofrequency pulses, these nuclei emit signals that can be detected and converted into high-resolution images. MR spectroscopy, an extension of MR imaging, provides valuable information about the chemical composition and concentration of metabolites within tissues [6].

Visualizing metabolic landscapes

Glucose metabolism: MR imaging can be used to measure glucose uptake and utilization in tumors. By administering a glucose analog labeled with a contrast agent, glucose metabolism can be quantified, highlighting areas of heightened metabolic activity within the tumor.

Lactate imaging: Elevated lactate levels are a hallmark of the Warburg effect. MR spectroscopy can detect and quantify lactate in tumors, providing insights into the glycolytic activity of cancer cells. Lactate levels can also serve as a marker for tumor aggressiveness [7].

PH imaging: Tumors often exhibit an acidic microenvironment due to increased glycolysis and lactate production. MR spectroscopy can measure tissue pH, aiding in the characterization of tumor acidity, which has implications for therapy response.

Metabolic profiling: MR spectroscopy can identify and quantify a wide range of metabolites beyond glucose and lactate. These include choline, creatine, and lipids, which can serve as biomarkers of cellular proliferation, energy metabolism, and membrane turnover.

Clinical applications

MR imaging’s ability to visualize metabolic landscapes in cancer has numerous clinical applications:

Early diagnosis: MR imaging can detect metabolic changes in tissues before structural abnormalities are apparent, allowing for early cancer diagnosis [8].

Treatment response assessment: Monitoring changes in metabolic profiles during therapy can assess treatment response and guide treatment modification.

Personalized medicine: MR-based metabolic profiling can help tailor treatments to the unique metabolic characteristics of an individual’s tumor [9 ,10].

Prognostication: Metabolic data can inform prognosis by identifying aggressive tumors with high metabolic activity.

Challenges and Future Directions

While MR imaging offers remarkable insights into cancer metabolism, challenges remain. Achieving sufficient spatial and temporal resolution for clinical applications can be demanding. Integration with other imaging modalities and data analytics techniques will be essential for comprehensive metabolic profiling.

Conclusion

Visualizing metabolic landscapes in cancer using MR imaging provides a window into the dynamic and heterogeneous nature of tumors. It enhances our understanding of cancer biology, aids in early diagnosis, and offers valuable information for treatment planning. As technology advances and our understanding of cancer metabolism deepens, MR imaging will continue to play a pivotal role in the fight against cancer.

1. Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ (2019) . Am J Gastroenterol 114: 529-554.

,

2. Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Isaacs KL, Regueiro MD, Gerson LB, et al. (2018) . Am J Gastroenterol 113: 481-517.

, ,

3. Ng SC, Shi HY, Hamidi N, Underwood FE, Tang W, et al. (2018) . Lancet 390: 2769-2778.

, ,

4. Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel JF, Peyrin-Biroulet L (2017) . Lancet 389: 1741-1755.

, ,

5. Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ (2012) . Lancet 380: 1590-1605.

, ,

6. Khor B, Gardet A, Xavier RJ (2011) . Nature 474: 307-317.

, Google Scholar,

7. Danese S, Fiocchi C (2011) . N Engl J Med 365: 1713-1725.

,

8. Loftus EV Jr. (2004) . Gastroenterology 126: 1504-1517.

, ,

9. Kaplan GG, Ng SC (2017) . Gastroenterology 152: 313-321.

, ,

10. Matsuoka K, Kanai T (2015) . Semin Immunopathol 37: 47-55.

, ,