An MRI Atlas of Regional Brain Vulnerability to Metastatic Disease
Turner, J. I.; Arias, A.; Fu, A.; Oermann, E. K.; Kondiolka, D.
Show abstract
Background and Objectives: Are some brain regions intrinsically more vulnerable to metastatic colonization? We sought to characterize the spatial distribution of brain metastases and determine whether regional patterns vary according to primary tumor origin. Methods: We analyzed baseline MRI scans and expert tumor segmentations from 906 patients with 3,492 brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Lesions were normalized to MNI152 standard space and superimposed to generate probabilistic atlases of metastatic occurrence. Regional metastatic burden was quantified using anatomical and vascular atlases. Spatial distributions were additionally compared between lung cancer and melanoma metastases. Results: Metastatic burden was distributed nonuniformly throughout the brain. The cerebellum demonstrated the strongest enrichment relative to its anatomical volume (fold change 1.61, p < 0.001), accompanied by overrepresentation of the vertebrobasilar circulation (fold change 1.49, p < 0.001). Spatial distribution also varied by primary tumor type. Lung cancer metastases demonstrated greater infratentorial involvement than melanoma metastases (16.6% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.05), with a corresponding increase in cerebellar burden (14.8% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.05), whereas melanoma metastases were relatively concentrated within the frontal lobe (37.7% vs. 24.6%, p < 0.01). Infratentorial enrichment was observed across all carcinoma subgroups, with the greatest enrichment seen in gastrointestinal metastases (32.9% infratentorial). Conclusion: Brain metastases exhibit nonrandom spatial distributions, with preferential involvement of posterior and infratentorial structures. Regional patterns vary according to primary tumor origin, supporting the existence of region-specific vulnerability to metastatic disease.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Single-nucleus analysis characterizes non-enhancing region of recurrent high-grade glioma 94%
- Spatial architecture of high-grade glioma reveals tumor heterogeneity within distinct domains 93%
- MRI Elastography Identifies Regions of Extracellular Matrix Reorganization Associated with Shorter Survival in Glioblastoma Patients 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Indication-specific tumor evolution and its impact on neoantigen targeting and biomarkers for individualized cancer immunotherapies 93%
- Differential Phagocytosis induces Diverse Macrophage Activation States in Malignant Gliomas 92%
- Oncolytic HSV-IL27 expression improves CD8 T cell function and therapeutic activity in syngeneic glioma models 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- An Omic and Multidimensional Spatial Atlas from Serial Biopsies of an Evolving Metastatic Breast Cancer 93%
- Spatial transcriptomics analysis identifies a unique tumor-promoting function of the meningeal stroma in melanoma leptomeningeal disease 93%
- Inflammatory reprogramming of the tumor microenvironment by infiltrating clonal hematopoiesis is associated with adverse outcomes in solid cancer 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of KRASG12C Inhibitor Responses in Novel Murine KRASG12C Lung Cancer Cell Line Models 90%
- Distinct metastatic organotropism shapes prognosis in lung adenocarcinoma with brain metastasis 90%
- Metabolic-imaging of human glioblastoma explants: a new precision-medicine model to predict tumor treatment response early 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Multiparametric MRI Along with Machine Learning Predicts Prognosis and Treatment Response in Pediatric Low-Grade Glioma 95%
- Glioma-neuronal circuit remodeling induces regional immunosuppression 92%
- Integrated radiogenomics models predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high grade serous ovarian cancer 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.