Chun-Jung Juan1, Teng-Chieh Cheng2, Tzu-Cheng Chao3, Teng-Yi Huang4, Chia-Wei Lin1, Wu-Chung Shen1, and Yi-Jui Liu2
1Department of Medical Imaging, China Medical University Hsinchu Hospital, Hsinchu, Taiwan, taichung, Taiwan, 2Department of Automatic Control Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, taichung, Taiwan, 3Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Cheng-Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan., tainan, Taiwan, 4Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, taipei, Taiwan
Synopsis
The
purpose of this study is to explore the alterations of IVIM measurement among multiple
b-value sets with different low b-value and high b-value numbers using EPDWI. EPDWI
with 41 different b-values was performed. For simulating the situation in clinic, five
sets of 16 b-value numbers were chose from the 41 b values. DWI data of 1000 pixels for each WM, GM and CSF
were randomly chose to evaluate the error of IVIM parameters. Our study demonstrated the
variation of DWI signal with multi-b-value, affect the evaluation of Df and f
but does not affect Ds in pixel-wise IVIM analysis.
Introduction
Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) can not only measure the diffusion
but also obtain the perfusion information in tissue without intravenous
injection of contrast agent [1]. IVIM uses multiple b values, especially including the flow-sensitive low
b values, to distinguish between fast microvascular flow and slow intracellular
and extracellular water diffusion, and the proportion of perfusion. The acquired data with
multiple b values are used to generate IVIM parametric maps via pixel-by-pixel computation
based on a biexponential fit using a nonlinear fitting procedure. Many researchers
have investigated on the fitting model of IVIM data processing for accurate
IVIM computation [2-4]. Because of the limited scan time, typically 10 to 16 b-value sets are performed between
0 and 1000 s/mm² with half of b values at no more than 250 s/mm² in clinical
practice [5,6]. However, signal variation of each single pixel on DWI is a
concern for EPDWI measurement (Fig.1). It is obvious that the noise-related fitting
errors might be incurred when fewer b-value numbers are selected due to DWI
signal variation. In this study, errors of IVIM parameters by DWI signal
variation were calculated using different b-value numbers in brain.Materials and Methods
Experiment design: One healthy volunteer (male,
age of 23 years) given informed consent took IVIM MRI scan. All images were
performed by a 3 Tesla MR scanner (GE Signa MR750, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee,WI).
EPI DWI sequence with diffusion-weighting images obtained along 3 orthogonal
directions using a total of 41 different b-values (b = 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100,
120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300, 320, 340, 360, 380, 400, 420,
440, 460, 480, 500, 520, 540, 560, 580, 600, 640, 680, 720, 760, 800, 840, 880,
920, 960, 1000 s/mm2). DWI were acquired in the axial plane, matrix
size 192 x 192, FOV 220 x 220 mm, section thickness = 5 mm, NEX = 1,
acceleration factor = 2, TR = 4000 ms, TE =84ms. Data Analysis: Image co-registration
were preprocessed using SPM12 package. The WM, GM and CSF map were segmented by
b0 image. The DWI signal decay as a function of b-values is modeled
according to the following biexponential equation based on the IVIM theory:
Sb/So = f*exp(−b(Df)) + (1−f)*exp(−bDs), here f is the perfusion fraction, Df
is called the pseudodiffusion coefficient and reflects dephasing due to
perfusion, Ds is diffusion coefficient. We applied a pixel-wise non-linear
least squares fit of the biexponential equation to the DWI data. For simulating
the situation in clinic, five sets of 16 b-value numbers were chosen from the
measurement data of 41 b values. In the five sets, the numbers of low b values
(0-240) to high b values (260-1000) were 11:5, 10:6, 9:7, 8:8, and 7:9 with
randomly assignment. DWI data of 1000 pixels for each WM, GM and CSF were
randomly chosen to evaluate the error of IVIM parameters by the five sets of 16
b-value numbers. The IVIM parameters fitting by original 41 b values were as
the reference set for calculating the error percentage for the IVIM parameters
in five sets of 16 b values using |IVIM5set-IVIMori|/IVIMori
x 100%. Result
The GM, WM and CSF maps were segmented by
b0 image (Fig. 2). Fig. 3 showed the DWI signals of randomly 1000 pixels in
each maps. The results (mean and standard derivation) of IVIM parameters (Ds,
Df and f) of original 41 b values and the five sets of 16 b-value numbers in WM, GM and CSF were listed on Table 1. Fig. 4 showed the error percentage of
IVIM parameters (f, Df and Ds) between reference set and the five sets of 16 b
values.Conclusion
Our
results show that the mean of Ds was slight different between reference and the
five sets in WM, DM and CSF, but the mean of Df and f were various (Table 1).
The error percentage also illustrated that the Ds was less affected in five
sets, the mean errors were smaller than 5% in all brain tissue. However, the
larger variation was shown in Df and f. The mean errors of Df were around 10%
in GM and CSF, and 11~16% in WM. The mean errors of f were around 15~20% in
CSF, 20~30% in GM, and over 30% in WM. Despite the largest error in WM, the f
values of WM are actually very small which easily produces the strong error.
Our study demonstrates the variation of DWI signal with multi-b-value, due to
the gradient noise in EPDWI scan, affects the evaluation of Df and f but does
not affect Ds in pixel-wise IVIM analysis. Acknowledgements
Supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology under
grants 105-2221-E-035 -049 -MY2References
1. Federau C, Maeder P, O'Brien K, Browaeys
P, Meuli R, Hagmann P. Quantitative measurement of brain perfusion with
intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology. 2012 Dec;265(3):874-81.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120584. Epub 2012 Oct 16.
2. Conklin J, Heyn C, Roux M, Cerny M,
Wintermark M, Federau C. A Simplified Model for Intravoxel Incoherent Motion
Perfusion Imaging of the Brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016
Dec;37(12):2251-2257. Epub 2016 Aug 25.
3. Keil VC, Mädler B, Gielen GH, Pintea B,
Hiththetiya K, Gaspranova AR, Gieseke J, Simon M, Schild HH, Hadizadeh DR.
Intravoxel incoherent motion MRI in the brain: Impact of the fitting model on
perfusion fraction and lesion differentiability. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017
Oct;46(4):1187-1199. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25615. Epub 2017 Feb 2.
4. Gurney-Champion OJ, Klaassen R, Froeling
M, Barbieri S, Stoker J, Engelbrecht MRW, Wilmink JW, Besselink MG, Bel A, van
Laarhoven HWM, Nederveen AJ. Comparison of six fit algorithms for the
intra-voxel incoherent motion model of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance
imaging data of pancreatic cancer patients. PLoS One. 2018 Apr
4;13(4):e0194590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194590. eCollection 2018.
5. Federau C, Meuli R, O'Brien K, Maeder P,
Hagmann P. Perfusion measurement in brain gliomas with intravoxel incoherent
motion MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Feb;35(2):256-62. doi:
10.3174/ajnr.A3686. Epub 2013 Aug 8.
6. Kim HS, Suh CH, Kim N, Choi CG, Kim SJ.
Histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion for differentiating
recurrent tumor from treatment effect in patients with glioblastoma: initial
clinical experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Mar;35(3):490-7. doi:
10.3174/ajnr.A3719. Epub 2013 Aug 22.