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
References
- Padhani AR. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(4):407–422.
- Li SP, Padhani AR. Tumor response assessments with diffusion and perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(4):745–763.
- 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.
- Materne R, Smith AM, Peeters F, et al. Assessment of hepatic perfusion parameters with dynamic MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2002;47(1):135–142.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Bernstein MAKK, Zhou XJ. Handbook of MRI Pulse Sequences. Elsevier; 2004. Chapter 14; p. 587.
- Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Physical Principles and Sequence Design. John Wiley & Sons; 1999.
- DCE MRI Technical Committee. DCE MRI Quantification Profile, Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Version 1.0. Reviewed Draft. QIBA, July 1, 2012. Available from: .
- 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.
- 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.
- Pandharipande PV, Krinsky GA, Rusinek H, Lee VS. Perfusion imaging of the liver: current challenges and future goals. Radiology. 2005;234(3):661–673.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Look DCLD. Time saving in measurement of NMR and EPR relaxation times. Rev Sci Instrum. 1970;41:250–251.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Thng CH, Koh TS, Collins DJ, Koh DM. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging of the liver. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(13):1598–1609.
- 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.
- Bruix J, Sherman M. Practice Guidelines Committee AAftSoLD. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2005;42(5):1208–1236.
- Kershaw LE, Cheng HL. A general dual-bolus approach for quantitative DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;29(2):160–166.
Source: PubMed