Convection-enhanced delivery is a technique to bypass the blood–brain barrier and deliver therapeutic drugs into the brain tissue. However, animal investigations and preliminary clinical trials have reported reduced efficacy to transport the infused drug in specific zones, attributed mainly to backflow, in which an annular gap is formed outside the catheter and the fluid preferentially flows toward the surface of the brain rather than through the tissue in front of the cannula tip. In this study, a three-dimensional human brain finite element model of backflow was developed to study the influence of anatomical structures during flow-controlled infusions. Predictions of backflow length were compared under the influence of ventricular pressure and the distance between the cannula and the ventricles. Simulations with zero relative ventricle pressure displayed similar backflow length predictions for larger cannula-ventricle distances. In addition, infusions near the ventricles revealed smaller backflow length and the liquid was observed to escape to the longitudinal fissure and ventricular cavities. Simulations with larger cannula-ventricle distances and nonzero relative ventricular pressure showed an increase of fluid flow through the tissue and away from the ventricles. These results reveal the importance of considering both the subject-specific anatomical details and the nonlinear effects in models focused on analyzing current and potential treatment options associated with convection-enhanced delivery optimization for future clinical trials.
BoboRHLaskeDWAkbasakA, et al. Convection-enhanced delivery of macromolecules in the brain. P Natl Acad Sci USA1994; 91: 2076–2080.
2.
MorrisonPFLaskeDWBoboH, et al. High-flow microinfusion: tissue penetration and pharmacodynamics. Am J Physiol1994; 266: R292–R305.
3.
TykockiTMiękisiakG. Application of convection-enhanced drug delivery in the treatment of malignant gliomas. World Neurosurg2016; 90: 172–178.
4.
ZhanWWangC-H. Convection enhanced delivery of chemotherapeutic drugs into brain tumour. J Control Release2018; 271: 74–87.
5.
HaarPJChenZ-JFatourosPP, et al. Modelling convection-enhanced delivery in normal and oedematous brain. J Med Eng Technol2014; 38: 76–84.
6.
BradyMLRaghavanRSinghD, et al. In vivo performance of a microfabricated catheter for intraparenchymal delivery. J Neurosci Methods2014; 229: 76–83.
7.
RosenbluthKHMartinAJBringasJ, et al. Evaluation of pressure-driven brain infusions in nonhuman primates by intra-operative 7 Tesla MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging2012; 36: 1339–1346.
8.
WhiteEBienemannAPughJ, et al. An evaluation of the safety and feasibility of convection-enhanced delivery of carboplatin into the white matter as a potential treatment for high-grade glioma. J Neurooncol2012; 108: 77–88.
9.
DickinsonPJLeCouteurRAHigginsRJ, et al. Canine spontaneous glioma: a translational model system for convection-enhanced delivery. Neuro-Oncology2010; 12: 928–940.
10.
ZouZYinYLinJ, et al. Convection-enhanced delivery of sorafenib and suppression of tumor progression in a murine model of brain melanoma through the inhibition of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3. J Neurosurg2016; 124: 1310–1318.
11.
HeissJDWalbridgeSArgersingerDP, et al. Convection-enhanced delivery of muscimol into the bilateral subthalamic nuclei of nonhuman primates. Neurosurgery2019; 84: E420–E429.
12.
TosiUKommidiHBellatV, et al. Real-time, in vivo correlation of molecular structure with drug distribution in the brain striatum following convection enhanced delivery. ACS Chem Neurosci2019; 10: 2287–2298.
13.
SewingACPLagerweijTvan VuurdenDG, et al. Preclinical evaluation of convection-enhanced delivery of liposomal doxorubicin to treat pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma and thalamic high-grade glioma. J Neurosurg Pediatr2017; 19: 518–530.
14.
SampsonJHArcherGPedainC, et al. Poor drug distribution as a possible explanation for the results of the PRECISE trial. J Neurosurg2010; 113: 301–309.
15.
KunwarSChangSWestphalM, et al. Phase III randomized trial of CED of IL13-PE38QQR vs Gliadel wafers for recurrent glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncology2010; 12: 871–881.
16.
WhiteEBienemannATaylorH, et al. A phase I trial of carboplatin administered by convection-enhanced delivery to patients with recurrent/progressive glioblastoma multiforme. Contemp Clin Trials2012; 33: 320–331.
17.
HeissJDArgersingerDPTheodoreWH, et al. Convection-enhanced delivery of muscimol in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Neurosurgery2018; 85: E4–E15.
BradyMLRaghavanRBlockW, et al. The relation between catheter occlusion and backflow during intraparenchymal cerebral infusions. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg2015; 93: 102–109.
20.
ChenMYLonserRRMorrisonPF, et al. Variables affecting convection-enhanced delivery to the striatum: a systematic examination of rate of infusion, cannula size, infusate concentration, and tissue-cannula sealing time. J Neurosurg1999; 90: 315–320.
21.
TannerPGHoltmannspötterMTonnJ-C, et al. Effects of drug efflux on convection-enhanced paclitaxel delivery to malignant gliomas: technical note. Neurosurgery2007; 61: E880–E882; discussion E882.
22.
WhiteEBienemannAMaloneJ, et al. An evaluation of the relationships between catheter design and tissue mechanics in achieving high-flow convection-enhanced delivery. J Neurosci Methods2011; 199: 87–97.
23.
VallesFFiandacaMSBringasJ, et al. Anatomic compression caused by high-volume convection-enhanced delivery to the brain. Neurosurgery2009; 65: 579–585; discussion 585–586.
24.
SampsonJHRaghavanRProvenzaleJM, et al. Induction of hyperintense signal on T2-weighted MR images correlates with infusion distribution from intracerebral convection-enhanced delivery of a tumor-targeted cytotoxin. Am J Roentgenol2007; 188: 703–709.
25.
VarenikaVDickinsonPBringasJ, et al. Detection of infusate leakage in the brain using real-time imaging of convection-enhanced delivery. J Neurosurg2008; 109: 874–880.
26.
HimesBTZhangLDanielsDJ. Treatment strategies in diffuse midline gliomas With the H3K27M mutation: the role of convection-enhanced delivery in overcoming anatomic challenges. Front Oncol2019; 9: 31.
27.
SampsonJHBradyMLPetryNA, et al. Intracerebral infusate distribution by convection-enhanced delivery in humans with malignant gliomas: descriptive effects of target anatomy and catheter positioning. Neurosurgery2007; 60: ONS89–ONS98; discussion ONS98–ONS99.
28.
MorrisonPFChenMYChadwickRS, et al. Focal delivery during direct infusion to brain: role of flow rate, catheter diameter, and tissue mechanics. Am J Physiol1999; 277: R1218–R1229.
29.
RaghavanRMikaelianSBradyM, et al. Fluid infusions from catheters into elastic tissue: I. Azimuthally symmetric backflow in homogeneous media. Phys Med Biol2010; 55: 281–304.
30.
SampsonJHRaghavanRBradyML, et al. Clinical utility of a patient-specific algorithm for simulating intracerebral drug infusions. Neuro-Oncology2007; 9: 343–353.
31.
RosenbluthKHEschermannJFMittermeyerG, et al. Analysis of a simulation algorithm for direct brain drug delivery. NeuroImage2012; 59: 2423–2429.
32.
RichardsonRMKellsAPMartinAJ, et al. Novel platform for MRI-guided convection-enhanced delivery of therapeutics: preclinical validation in nonhuman primate brain. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg2011; 89: 141–151.
33.
RosenbluthKHMartinAJMittermeyerS, et al. Rapid inverse planning for pressure-driven drug infusions in the brain. PLoS ONE2013; 8: e56397.
34.
ZhanWWangC-H. Convection enhanced delivery of liposome encapsulated doxorubicin for brain tumour therapy. J Control Release2018; 285: 212–229.
35.
KasterTSackISamaniA. Measurement of the hyperelastic properties of ex vivo brain tissue slices. J Biomech2011; 44: 1158–1163.
36.
BuddaySSommerGBirklC, et al. Mechanical characterization of human brain tissue. Acta Biomater2017; 48: 319–340.
37.
MillerKChinzeiK. Mechanical properties of brain tissue in tension. J Biomech2002; 35: 483–490.
38.
GarcíaJJSmithJH. A biphasic hyperelastic model for the analysis of fluid and mass transport in brain tissue. Ann Biomed Eng2009; 37: 375–386.
39.
SmithJHGarcíaJJ. A nonlinear biphasic model of flow-controlled infusion in brain: fluid transport and tissue deformation analyses. J Biomech2009; 42: 2017–2025.
40.
SmithJHGarcíaJJ. A nonlinear biphasic model of flow-controlled infusions in brain: mass transport analyses. J Biomech2011; 44: 524–531.
41.
GarcíaJJMolanoABSmithJH. Description and validation of a finite element model of backflow during infusion into a brain tissue phantom. J Comput Nonlinear Dyn2012; 8: 011017.
42.
OrozcoGASmithJHGarcíaJJ. Backflow length predictions during flow-controlled infusions using a nonlinear biphasic finite element model. Med Biol Eng Comput2014; 52: 841–849.
43.
OrozcoGASmithJHGarcíaJJ. Parametric analysis of drug distribution during infusions into the brain using an axisymmetric model with backflow. Rev Ing Bioméd2014; 8: 56–64.
44.
RashidBDestradeMGilchristMD. Inhomogeneous deformation of brain tissue during tension tests. Comput Mater Sci2012; 64: 295–300.
45.
MihaiLABuddaySHolzapfelGA, et al. A family of hyperelastic models for human brain tissue. J Mech Phys Solids2017; 106: 60–79.
46.
RenPWangB-CWangY-Z, et al. Evaluating tensile damage of brain tissue in intracerebral hemorrhage based on strain energy. Exp Ther Med2018; 16: 4843–4852.
47.
ZhaoWChoateBJiS. Material properties of the brain in injury—relevant conditions—experiments and computational modeling. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2018; 80: 222–234.
48.
BuddaySSommerGHolzapfelGA, et al. Viscoelastic parameter identification of human brain tissue. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 74: 463–476.
49.
FranceschiniGBigoniDRegitnigP, et al. Brain tissue deforms similarly to filled elastomers and follows consolidation theory. J Mech Phys Solids2006; 54: 2592–2620.
50.
SobeyIWirthB. Effect of non-linear permeability in a spherically symmetric model of hydrocephalus. Math Med Biol2006; 23: 339–361.
51.
ChenXAstaryGWSepulvedaH, et al. Quantitative assessment of macromolecular concentration during direct infusion into an agarose hydrogel phantom using contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging2008; 26: 1433–1441.
52.
ChenXSarntinoranontM. Biphasic finite element model of solute transport for direct infusion into nervous tissue. Ann Biomed Eng2007; 35: 2145–2158.
53.
JahangiriAChinATFlaniganPM, et al. Convection-enhanced delivery in glioblastoma: a review of preclinical and clinical studies. J Neurosurg2017; 126: 191–200.
54.
ChengSBilstonLE. Computational model of the cerebral ventricles in hydrocephalus. J Biomech Eng2010; 132: 054501.
55.
Dutta-RoyTWittekAMillerK. Biomechanical modelling of normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Biomech2008; 41: 2263–2271.
56.
GarcíaJJSmithJH. A biphasic hyperelastic model for hydrocephalus. Lat Am Appl Res2010; 40: 295–302.
57.
HladkySBBarrandMA. Mechanisms of fluid movement into, through and out of the brain: evaluation of the evidence. Fluids Barriers CNS2014; 11: 26.
58.
BrinkerTStopaEMorrisonJ, et al. A new look at cerebrospinal fluid circulation. Fluids Barriers CNS2014; 11: 10.
59.
MaQIneichenBVDetmarM, et al. Outflow of cerebrospinal fluid is predominantly through lymphatic vessels and is reduced in aged mice. Nat Commun2017; 8: 1434.
60.
LarjavaaraSMäntyläRSalminenT, et al. Incidence of gliomas by anatomic location. Neuro-Oncology2007; 9: 319–325.
61.
BruceJNFineRLCanollP, et al. Regression of recurrent malignant gliomas with convection-enhanced delivery of topotecan. Neurosurgery2011; 69: 1272–1279; discussion 1279–1280.
62.
CzosnykaZKimD-JBalédentO, et al. Mathematical modelling of CSF pulsatile flow in aqueduct cerebri. Acta Neurochir Suppl2018; 126: 233–236.
63.
LefeverJAGarcíaJJSmithJH. A patient-specific, finite element model for noncommunicating hydrocephalus capable of large deformation. J Biomech2013; 46: 1447–1453.
64.
KasprowiczMLalouDACzosnykaM, et al. Intracranial pressure, its components and cerebrospinal fluid pressure–volume compensation. Acta Neurol Scand2016; 134: 168–180.
65.
GarnotelSSalmonSBalédentO. Numerical cerebrospinal system modeling in fluid-structure interaction. Acta Neurochir Suppl2018; 126: 255–259.
66.
Nordling-DavidMMYaffeRGuezD, et al. Liposomal temozolomide drug delivery using convection enhanced delivery. J Control Release2017; 261: 138–146.
67.
VogelbaumMAAghiMK. Convection-enhanced delivery for the treatment of glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncology2015; 17(Suppl. 2): ii3–ii8.
68.
FiandacaMSVarenikaVEberlingJ, et al. Real-time MR imaging of adeno-associated viral vector delivery to the primate brain. NeuroImage2009; 47(Suppl. 2): T27–T35.
69.
ChenP-YYehC-KHsuP-H, et al. Drug-carrying microbubbles as a theranostic tool in convection-enhanced delivery for brain tumor therapy. Oncotarget2017; 8: 42359–42371.
70.
SillayKAMcClatchySGShepherdBA, et al. Image-guided convection-enhanced delivery into agarose gel models of the brain. J Vis Exp2014; 87: e51466.
71.
SchombergDWangAMarshallH, et al. Ramped-rate vs continuous-rate infusions: an in vitro comparison of convection enhanced delivery protocols. Ann Neurosci2013; 20: 59–64.
72.
ChenZ-JGilliesGTBroaddusWC, et al. A realistic brain tissue phantom for intraparenchymal infusion studies. J Neurosurg2004; 101: 314–322.
73.
MiranpuriGHinchmanAWangA, et al. Convection enhanced delivery: a comparison of infusion characteristics in ex vivo and in vivo non-human primate brain tissue. Ann Neurosci2013; 20: 108–114.
74.
LinningerAASomayajiMRMekarskiM, et al. Prediction of convection-enhanced drug delivery to the human brain. J Theor Biol2008; 250: 125–138.
75.
MindermannT. Pressure gradients within the central nervous system. J Clin Neurosci1999; 6: 464–466.
76.
HayashiNMatsumaeMYatsushiroyS, et al. Quantitative analysis of cerebrospinal fluid pressure gradients in healthy volunteers and patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Med Chir2015; 55: 657–662.
77.
MatsumaeMHirayamaAAtsumiH, et al. Velocity and pressure gradients of cerebrospinal fluid assessed with magnetic resonance imaging: clinical article. J Neurosurg2014; 120: 218–227.
78.
KimHParkD-HYiS, et al. Finite element analysis for normal pressure hydrocephalus: the effects of the integration of sulci. Med Image Anal2015; 24: 235–244.
79.
KimHMinB-KParkD-H, et al. Porohyperelastic anatomical models for hydrocephalus and idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Neurosurg2015; 122: 1330–1340.
80.
LehockyCAFellows-MayleWEnghJA, et al. Tip design for safety of steerable needles for robot-controlled brain insertion. Robot Surg2017; 4: 107–114.
81.
SuPYangYZhangL, et al. Biomechanical simulation of needle insertion into cornea based on distortion energy failure criterion. Acta Bioeng Biomech2016; 18: 65–75.
82.
FanXRobertsDWSchaeweTJ, et al. Intraoperative image updating for brain shift following dural opening. J Neurosurg2017; 126: 1924–1933.
83.
JiSFanXRobertsDW, et al. Cortical surface shift estimation using stereovision and optical flow motion tracking via projection image registration. Med Image Anal2014; 18: 1169–1183.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
