DCE-MRI of the liver: effect of linear and nonlinear conversions on hepatic perfusion quantification and reproducibility

Shimon Aronhime, Claudia Calcagno, Guido H Jajamovich, Hadrien Arezki Dyvorne, Philip Robson, Douglas Dieterich, M Isabel Fiel, Valérie Martel-Laferriere, Manjil Chatterji, Henry Rusinek, Bachir Taouli, Shimon Aronhime, Claudia Calcagno, Guido H Jajamovich, Hadrien Arezki Dyvorne, Philip Robson, Douglas Dieterich, M Isabel Fiel, Valérie Martel-Laferriere, Manjil Chatterji, Henry Rusinek, Bachir Taouli

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different methods to convert magnetic resonance (MR) signal intensity (SI) to gadolinium concentration ([Gd]) on estimation and reproducibility of model-free and modeled hepatic perfusion parameters measured with dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI.

Materials and methods: In this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved prospective study, 23 DCE-MRI examinations of the liver were performed on 17 patients. SI was converted to [Gd] using linearity vs. nonlinearity assumptions (using spoiled gradient recalled echo [SPGR] signal equations). The [Gd] vs. time curves were analyzed using model-free parameters and a dual-input single compartment model. Perfusion parameters obtained with the two conversion methods were compared using paired Wilcoxon test. Test-retest and interobserver reproducibility of perfusion parameters were assessed in six patients.

Results: There were significant differences between the two conversion methods for the following parameters: AUC60 (area under the curve at 60 s, P < 0.001), peak gadolinium concentration (Cpeak, P < 0.001), upslope (P < 0.001), Fp (portal flow, P = 0.04), total hepatic flow (Ft, P = 0.007), and MTT (mean transit time, P < 0.001). Our preliminary results showed acceptable to good reproducibility for all model-free parameters for both methods (mean coefficient of variation [CV] range, 11.87-23.7%), except for upslope (CV = 37%). Among modeled parameters, DV (distribution volume) had CV <22% with both methods, PV and MTT showed CV <21% and <29% using SPGR equations, respectively. Other modeled parameters had CV >30% with both methods.

Conclusion: Linearity assumption is acceptable for quantification of model-free hepatic perfusion parameters while the use of SPGR equations and T1 mapping may be recommended for the quantification of modeled hepatic perfusion parameters.

Keywords: fibrosis; liver; perfusion quantification.

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
64 year-old man with chronic HCV. Liver T1 map obtained with breath-hold Look-Locker sequence (see parameters in Table 1). T1 value in right hepatic lobe was 510.6 msec.
Figure 2
Figure 2
64 year old man with chronic HCV (same as in Fig. 1). Select images (16.2, 24.3 and 32.4 sec after gadolinium contrast injection) shown from DCE-MRI acquisition (temporal resolution of 2.7 s, other parameters listed in Table 1) show ROI placement for perfusion processing over the abdominal aorta (in red), portal vein (PV in blue) and liver parenchyma (in green).
Figure 3
Figure 3
64 year old man with chronic HCV (same as in Fig. 1, 2). Signal intensity (SI) versus time curves for abdominal aorta (in red), portal vein (in blue) and liver parenchyma (in green) shown on top. Concentration vs. time curves for the aorta, portal vein and liver parenchyma using linear and SPGR conversion methods shown on the bottom. Both the SI and [Gd] (Gadolinium concentration) curves appear as expected. The arterial curves portray a sharp first pass peak with secondary recirculation peaks. Aortic signal saturation is observed on the linear conversion curve, with clear differences in gadolinium concentrations ([Gd]) seen in the 3 tissues of interest (aorta, portal vein and liver) when comparing the two conversion methods.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Phantom data using the IRTSE and Look-Locker sequences for measuring pre-contrast T1. R1 (1/T1 in sec−1) vs. concentration for the Look-Locker sequence correlated well with the IRTSE sequence in a concentration range of 0 to 5 mM. This corresponded to T1 values up to 676.1 msec, which fell in the range of calculated in vivo hepatic T1 values.

References

    1. Padhani AR. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(4):407–422.
    1. Li SP, Padhani AR. Tumor response assessments with diffusion and perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(4):745–763.
    1. Ferl GZ, Port RE. Quantification of antiangiogenic and antivascular drug activity by kinetic analysis of DCE-MRI data. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(1):118–124.
    1. Materne R, Smith AM, Peeters F, et al. Assessment of hepatic perfusion parameters with dynamic MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2002;47(1):135–142.
    1. Annet L, Materne R, Danse E, Jamart J, Horsmans Y, Van Beers BE. Hepatic flow parameters measured with MR imaging and Doppler US: correlations with degree of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Radiology. 2003;229(2):409–414.
    1. Van Beers BE, Materne R, Annet L, et al. Capillarization of the sinusoids in liver fibrosis: Noninvasive assessment with contrast-enhanced MRI in the rabbit. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49(4):692–699.
    1. Hagiwara M, Rusinek H, Lee VS, et al. Advanced liver fibrosis: diagnosis with 3D whole-liver perfusion MR imaging--initial experience. Radiology. 2008;246(3):926–934.
    1. Abdullah SS, Pialat JB, Wiart M, et al. Characterization of hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis by means of perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(2):390–395.
    1. Patel J, Sigmund EE, Rusinek H, Oei M, Babb JS, Taouli B. Diagnosis of cirrhosis with intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI alone and in combination: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(3):589–600.
    1. Materne R, Van Beers BE, Smith AM, et al. Non-invasive quantification of liver perfusion with dynamic computed tomography and a dual-input one-compartmental model. Clin Sci (Lond) 2000;99(6):517–525.
    1. Ronot M, Asselah T, Paradis V, et al. Liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C virus infection: differentiating minimal from intermediate fibrosis with perfusion CT. Radiology. 2010;256(1):135–142.
    1. Hittmair K, Gomiscek G, Langenberger K, Recht M, Imhof H, Kramer J. Method for the quantitative assessment of contrast agent uptake in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1994;31(5):567–571.
    1. Parker GJ, Suckling J, Tanner SF, et al. Probing tumor microvascularity by measurement, analysis and display of contrast agent uptake kinetics. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7(3):564–574.
    1. Bernstein MAKK, Zhou XJ. Handbook of MRI Pulse Sequences. Elsevier; 2004. Chapter 14; p. 587.
    1. Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Physical Principles and Sequence Design. John Wiley & Sons; 1999.
    1. DCE MRI Technical Committee. DCE MRI Quantification Profile, Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Version 1.0. Reviewed Draft. QIBA, July 1, 2012. Available from: .
    1. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology. 2004;230(3):652–659.
    1. Do RK, Rusinek H, Taouli B. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the liver: current status and future directions. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009;17(2):339–349.
    1. Pandharipande PV, Krinsky GA, Rusinek H, Lee VS. Perfusion imaging of the liver: current challenges and future goals. Radiology. 2005;234(3):661–673.
    1. Sommer WH, Sourbron S, Huppertz A, Ingrisch M, Reiser MF, Zech CJ. Contrast agents as a biological marker in magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: conventional and new approaches. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37(2):164–179.
    1. Sourbron S, Sommer WH, Reiser MF, Zech CJ. Combined quantification of liver perfusion and function with dynamic gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;263(3):874–883.
    1. Koh TS, Thng CH, Lee PS, et al. Hepatic metastases: in vivo assessment of perfusion parameters at dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with dual-input two-compartment tracer kinetics model. Radiology. 2008;249(1):307–320.
    1. Sahani DV, Holalkere NS, Mueller PR, Zhu AX. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: CT perfusion of liver and tumor tissue--initial experience. Radiology. 2007;243(3):736–743.
    1. Ng CS, Chandler AG, Wei W, et al. Reproducibility of CT perfusion parameters in liver tumors and normal liver. Radiology. 2011;260(3):762–770.
    1. Miyazaki K, Collins DJ, Walker-Samuel S, et al. Quantitative mapping of hepatic perfusion index using MR imaging: a potential reproducible tool for assessing tumour response to treatment with the antiangiogenic compound BIBF 1120, a potent triple angiokinase inhibitor. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(7):1414–1421.
    1. Medved M, Karczmar G, Yang C, et al. Semiquantitative analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in cancer patients: Variability and changes in tumor tissue over time. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20(1):122–128.
    1. Ng CS, Raunig DL, Jackson EF, et al. Reproducibility of perfusion parameters in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of lung and liver tumors: effect on estimates of patient sample size in clinical trials and on individual patient responses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(2):W134–W140.
    1. Roberts C, Issa B, Stone A, Jackson A, Waterton JC, Parker GJ. Comparative study into the robustness of compartmental modeling and model-free analysis in DCE-MRI studies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;23(4):554–563.
    1. Galbraith SM, Lodge MA, Taylor NJ, et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in human muscle and tumours: comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis. NMR Biomed. 2002;15(2):132–142.
    1. Morgan B, Utting JF, Higginson A, Thomas AL, Steward WP, Horsfield MA. A simple, reproducible method for monitoring the treatment of tumours using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(10):1420–1427.
    1. Ashton E, Raunig D, Ng C, Kelcz F, McShane T, Evelhoch J. Scan-rescan variability in perfusion assessment of tumors in MRI using both model and data-derived arterial input functions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(3):791–796.
    1. Henderson E, McKinnon G, Lee TY, Rutt BK. A fast 3D look-locker method for volumetric T1 mapping. Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;17(8):1163–1171.
    1. Look DCLD. Time saving in measurement of NMR and EPR relaxation times. Rev Sci Instrum. 1970;41:250–251.
    1. Katsube T, Okada M, Kumano S, et al. Estimation of liver function using T1 mapping on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(4):277–283.
    1. Dobre MC, Ugurbil K, Marjanska M. Determination of blood longitudinal relaxation time (T1) at high magnetic field strengths. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(5):733–735.
    1. Schabel MC, Parker DL. Uncertainty and bias in contrast concentration measurements using spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(9):2345–2373.
    1. Jones RA, Easley K, Little SB, Scherz H, Kirsch AJ, Grattan-Smith JD. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR urography in the evaluation of pediatric hydronephrosis: Part 1, functional assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(6):1598–1607.
    1. Hsu CY, Shen YC, Yu CW, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers predict survival and response in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib and metronomic tegafur/uracil. J Hepatol. 2011;55(4):858–865.
    1. Thng CH, Koh TS, Collins DJ, Koh DM. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging of the liver. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(13):1598–1609.
    1. Willatt JM, Hussain HK, Adusumilli S, Marrero JA. MR Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver: challenges and controversies. Radiology. 2008;247(2):311–330.
    1. Bruix J, Sherman M. Practice Guidelines Committee AAftSoLD. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2005;42(5):1208–1236.
    1. Kershaw LE, Cheng HL. A general dual-bolus approach for quantitative DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;29(2):160–166.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit