Sisi Liang1, Narina Norddin2, Eleftheria Panagiotaki 3, Andre Bongers4, Peng Shi1, Laurence Gluch5, and Roger Bourne2
1College of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, 2Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 3Center for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 4Biological Resource Imaging Laboratory, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 5The Strathfield Breast Centre, Strathfield, Australia
Synopsis
DWI signal attenuation
measured in biological tissue is widely observed to be non-monoexponential. One
important diffusion characteristic underlying that complex behavior is
restriction and hindrance to water diffusion.
This study compared multi-component restricted and unrestricted models of
diffusion in the glandular part of breast tissue. The results show that
multi-component restricted and anisotropic models explain the data best. This
finding is consistent with the presence of distinct diffusion microenvironments
in breast tissue. Development of clinical DWI methods that incorporate these
features may improve breast cancer assessment.Purpose
Diffusion weighted MRI (DWI) is a valuable adjunct to T
2-weighted
imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to enhance the accuracy of
breast cancer diagnosis and staging. Differences in the apparent diffusion
coefficient (ADC) of benign and malignant breast lesions have been reported from
clinical studies
1,2, however, the biophysical basis of reduced ADC
in cancer tissue remains poorly understood. The most diagnostically useful
models are likely to be those based on tissue microstructure. Recent
microimaging study of breast tissue ex vivo demonstrated that epithelial cell
layers in gland had lower diffusivity than their adjacent supporting stroma
3.
Motivated by this finding, this study investigated multi-component restricted
and unrestricted models of diffusion in formalin-fixed glandular breast tissue.
Methods
DWI. A fixed breast tissue
specimen was washed in saline +0.2% v/v Magnevist. Imaging was performed at 22℃ in a Bruker Biospec 9.4T scanner with method similar to 4.
A pulsed gradient spin echo sequence was applied with: Δ = 10, 20,
40, 80 ms; δ = 5, 10ms;
nominal b = 100, 311, 603, 965, 1391,
1873, 2411, 3000 s/mm2; voxel size 1.0×0.8×1.0 mm3; 3
orthogonal gradient directions; TE = 18, 28, 33, 48, 53, 88, 93 ms; TR =
2000ms; SNRb=0 ~142; FOV 50×30 mm; slice thickness = 1.0 mm; and matrix
50×30. A separate 6-direction DTI acquisition was performed with the same Δ, δ and TE as the
3-direction measurements and nominal b = 965,
1873 s/mm2. The data were normalized to reduce T2 dependence.
Effective b-values were used for
model fitting.
Diffusion Models. Breast
tissue was modeled with one to three components representing non-exchanging
spin pools. For each component, there were five candidate models 5:
1) a ‘Tensor’ which is a conventional
DTI model; 2) a ‘Zeppelin’ that
describes a cylindrically symmetric tensor; 3) a ‘Ball’ that is an isotropic tensor; 4)
a ‘Sphere’ describing diffusion
inside an impermeable sphere of radius R;
and 5) a ‘Stick’ assuming diffusion
within an idealized cylinder of zero radius. Diffusivities were constrained to
be within biologically plausible limits so that 0<D<2.1 μm2/ms. For the ‘Sphere’ model, we constrained the radius to be 0.1<R<20 μm. Eleven
models were fitted to each voxel in 68 regions of interest (ROIs) delineating gland
lobule tissue (Fig 1A). Note that the ROIs do not include fat and interlobular
stroma.
Model fitting and ranking. Each model was fitted to the combined DTI and 3-direction
DWI data using the Levenberg-Marquardt minimization algorithm in the open
source Camino toolkit 6. Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was calculated
to provide an objective comparison of the information content of different
models. Lower AIC indicates higher model information content and predicts
superior model performance with unseen data.
Results
Fig. 1B presents the
overall AIC ranking of the 11 models over all voxels from all gland ROIs (102
voxels total). The models that included the restricted sphere component ranked
highest, while the unrestricted Ball (ADC), Bi-ball (biexponential) and DTI models
ranked lowest. Fig 2 illustrates the fit of four of the models to a representative
voxel with the corresponding AIC ranking position. Table 1 summarizes values of
the sphere radius
R from the four
restricted models.
Discussion &
Conclusions
In glandular breast
tissue lobules, DWI performed over multiple diffusion times showed distinct evidence of
restricted water diffusion. In many voxels the models comprising both a
restricted and an anisotropic component ranked higher than the isotropic
restricted
Ball-sphere model,
indicating the presence of significant diffusion anisotropy in one spin pool at
this voxel size (~1mm
3). Breast gland lobules (the ROIs in this
study) are comprised of low diffusivity epithelium and higher diffusivity intralobular
fibrous stroma
3. The superior performance of multi-component
restricted and anisotropic models we found is consistent with the presence of
distinct diffusion microenvironments in breast gland lobules, and the
possibility that the restricted and anisotropic spin pools correspond to
epithelium and intralobular stroma respectively requires further investigation.
This possibility is supported by the mean sphere radius of ~13μm which
is similar to the epithelial cell size. Development of clinical DWI methods
sensitive to changes in these environments (for example
7) may be
the key to increased accuracy of breast cancer detection.
Acknowledgements
Supported by Australian NHMRC grant 1026467.References
1)
Woodhams R, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of malignant breast tumors: the
usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and ADC map for the
detection of malignant breast tumors and evaluation of cancer extension. J Comput
Assist Tomogr. 2005;29(5):644-649. 2) Bickel H, et al. Quantitative apparent
diffusion coefficient as a noninvasive imaging biomarker for the
differentiation of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Invest
Radiol. 2015;50(2): 95-100. 3) Norddin N, et al. Microscopic diffusion
properties of fixed breast tissue: Preliminary findings. Magn Reson Med. 2014. 4)
Bourne R, et al. Information theoretic ranking of four models of diffusion
attenuation in fresh and fixed prostate tissue ex vivo. Magn Reson Med. 2014;72(5):1418-1426.
5) Panagiotaki E, et al. Compartment models of the diffusion MR signal in brain
white matter: a taxonomy and comparison. NeuroImage. 2012;59(3):2241-2254. 6) Cook
PA, et al. Camino: open-source diffusion-MRI reconstruction and processing. ISMRM
2006 P2759. 7) Panagiotaki E, et al. Noninvasive quantification of solid tumor
microstructure using VERDICT MRI. Cancer Res. 2014;74(7):1902-1912.