Comparison of different mathematical models for IVIM in healthy human kidneys
Zhongwei Chen1, Youfan Zhao1, Zhenhua Zhang1, Haiwei Miu1, and Qiong Ye1

1Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China, People's Republic of

Synopsis

Various mathematical models have been applied in IVIM. Even with the same data, derived results change with the model used. Our study compared four popular mathematical models of IVIM in healthy human kidneys to explore this technique.

Background and purpose: Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging(IVIM) has shown the potential to separate pure diffusion and the contribution from microcirculation using diffusion-weighted imaging(DWI). Yet, the derived results of IVIM vary with the mathematical model and the selection of b-values. Which is the best model? Does the universal best model exist? So the aim of this study was to investigate different mathematical models for IVIM imaging in healthy human kidneys.

Methods: 21 healthy volunteers (9 male/ 12 female; median age 25.5 years; range 23-28 years) underwent MRI examination using 3T clinical MR scanner (Achieva, Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands) with 8-channel abdomen coil. IVIM was acquired using a single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging (EPI) pulse sequence with respiration trigger. 10 b-values were used (0, 10, 25,40, 75, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 700s/mm2) on 3 gradient directions with following parameters: FOV=240×384×151(AP/RL/FH)mm3, matrix=80×128, slice thickness=3.0 mm with a gap of 1 mm, and TE/TR=78/1344 ms. Images were motion corrected in FSL, and processed in Matlab with home-developed program. Regions of interest (ROIs) were manually drawn on bilateral cortex and medulla of central section near the renal hilum using ImageJ. Dslow and perfusion fraction(f) were derived from fitted signal intensity using following 4 different IVIM models: (1) Model 1: ln(Sb/S0)=f-b*D [1] for b=0, 200, 300, 500, 700 s/mm2; (2) Model 2: Dslow was calculated from mono-exponential fitting of b=0, 200, 300, 500, 700 s/mm2. Using the obtained and fixed Dslow, signal intensity was fitted by Sb/S0 = f*exp(-b*Dfast)+(1-f)*exp(-b*Dslow) for all b-values to get f and Dfast ;(3) Model 3: combine IVIM and DKI, Sb/S0 = f*exp(-b*Dfast)+(1-f)*exp(-b*Dslow+b2*Dslow2*K/6)[2]; (4) Model 4: a typical multi-step ROI based approach was applied as Ref[3]. Different from the literature, instead of define the optimized threshold of b values, Dslow and f were selected from the fitting with minimum sum of the squared residual (SSE) individually. The difference of Dslow and f between cortex and medulla of kidney were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and non-parametric test was used when the data distribution was skewed. Finally, Coefficient of Variance(CoV) was calculated. P<0.05 is considered for statistically significant.

Results: A representative Dslow and f mapping of kidneys from Model 1-3 are shown in Fig 1. The grayscale background is b=0 imaging. Derived Dslow and f values from four models are shown in Fig 2 and Table 1. All models can show significant differences in Dslow between cortex and medulla except for model 4, which can’t differentiate right cortex and right medulla. Yet, only model 3 shows significant difference in f value between cortex and medulla. As shown in Table 1, in general, Dslow is more consistent than f. The CoV of Dslow and f from model 1 show the best performance.

Discussion and Conclusion: Previously, Moritz C Wurnig et al suggested that the combined IVIM-DKI model is more accurately describes the behavior of tissue in diffusion experiments [2]. However, in our study its CoV is larger than others. From our study, model 1 and 2 are more reliable than other two models, while model 3 might be more sensitive to physiological alternation. Model 4, which is ROI based, showed moderate CoV while the sensitivity to tissue microstructure is decreased. MRI signal mainly originates from intra-, extra- and vascular water molecule, yet, the visibility of MR signal was dominated by relaxation times of individual components and the TE/TR settings. TE=78ms was used in our study, which might be long enough to vanish signal from extracellular water molecule at 3T. Different TE/TR settings are used in different study, and relaxation times changes with physiological state, the number of visible components in the MR signal is unknown. This might contribute to the controversy of optimized mathematical models of IVIM. Investigation of the relaxation times of individual water components might be compulsory before the searching of optimized mathematical model.

Acknowledgements

Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81401544) and Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province of China(Grant No. LQ14H180006)

References

[1]Yuxi Pang, et al. Magn Reson Med. 69:553-562(2013) [2].Moritz C Wurnig, et al. Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 23(2015). [3].Wurnig MC, et al. Magn Reson Med. 2014 Oct 31. doi:10.1002/mrm.25506.

Figures

Figure 1 : (A),(C),(E) show the Dslow mapping from model1-3, (B),(D),(F) show the f mapping from corresponding model.

Figure 2. Differences of Dslow and f between four models. *:p<.05, LC=Left Cortex, LM=Left Medulla, RC=Right Cortex, RM=Right Medulla

Table 1. The CoV and (mean±STD) of Dslow and f from these four models. LC=Left Cortex, LM=Left Medulla, RC=Right Cortex, RM=Right Medulla



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
1977