Synopsis
The aim of
this study was to investigate whether intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MRI
could be a non-invasive alternative for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI for
response prediction in patients with esophageal cancer. The feasibility of IVIM
was researched, followed by a first comparison with DCE-MRI. It was found that
non-rigid registration improved the fitting of the IVIM parameters
significantly. Comparison of IVIM and DCE-MRI suggested an inverse relation
between perfusion fraction and area-under-the-concentration curve (AUC).Purpose
To assess
the feasibility and compare IVIM-MRI with DCE-MRI for treatment response assessment
in patients with esophageal cancer during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).
Introduction
DCE-MRI
is used to probe the status of tumor microvasculature by means of intravenous
contrast injection. In a recent study, DCE-MRI was found to be predictive for pathologic response in patients with
esophageal cancer undergoing nCRT
1.
Specifically, it was shown that the percentage difference in the 75
th
percentile AUC between scans acquired before and during nCRT (P75 AUC
during-before)
differentiated TRG (tumor regression grade) 1-2 from TRG 3-5 at a threshold of
22.7% (sensitivity 92%, specificity 77%)
1,2.
IVIM-MRI also probes the tissue perfusion but with a different mechanism than
DCE-MRI. In IVIM-MRI, a high number of diffusion weighted scans is performed
and a signal model is fitted to derive 3 parameters: diffusion (D), perfusion
fraction (Fp) and pseudo-perfusion (D*)
3.
If IVIM parameters are as predictive as DCE-MRI for treatment response, these
patients can be spared from intravenous contrast injection. Furthermore, it
would allow for repeated response assessment measurements during MRI-guided
radiotherapy
4. So far, varying
results have been reported for the correlation between the IVIM perfusion-related
parameters (D* and Fp) and DCE-MRI parameters outside the
esophagus
5,6.
Method
Six
patients with biopsy-proven esophageal cancer underwent MRI exams before and after
8-13 fractions of nCRT at a 1.5T system (Philips Ingenia, Best, the Netherlands,
see Table 1 for scan parameters). All patients are scheduled to undergo surgery,
followed by pathologic assessment of the TRG. A clinician delineated the
primary tumor volume on the T
2-weighted scans, which was reduced
with an isotropic 2 mm margin to account for motion. DCE-MRI studies were
analyzed analogous to our previous study
1,
including rigid registration to account for breathing motion within the studies,
calculation of contrast concentration using T
1-mapping and analysis of the AUC
(integral of 60 sec, starting after inflow contrast in aorta) to predict
outcome for good (TRG 1-2) versus poor (TRG 3-5) response.
Coronal
IVIM-MRI was acquired with 13 b-values ranging from 0 to 800 s/mm
2.
Correction for geometric distortions was performed using a B
0-field
map
7. 3D B-Spline registration on IVIM accounted for motion within scans
(registration between even and odd slices) and between the several
diffusion-weighted scans using an approach introduced by Guyader et al.
8. IVIM was analyzed performing a bi-exponential fit
(non-linear least-squares)
3.
Parameters Fp and D were fitted first, using b-values ≥200 s/mm
2, followed
by fitting of D*. The R
2 (goodness of fit) was used to analyze the
influence of the B-Spline registration compared to only performing geometric
correction. During the analysis of the IVIM parameters a threshold of R
2<0.7
was used to exclude voxels with a poor fit. For each patient the median values of
IVIM parameters within the delineation were determined for both scans together
with the relative difference between the scans.
Results and Discussion
One
patient was excluded from analysis due to the small tumor volume (<4mL). The
improvement of the registration is clearly visible in Fig. 1, where b0 s/mm
2
(transverse view of coronal scans), Fp and the data/fit for one tumor voxel are
shown for both approaches. A significant improvement in median R
2
values within the delineation was found by registration of the 10 scans (0.72±0.27
[mean±SD] for geometric correction only, 0.93±0.07 for additional registration,
p<0.01, Wilcoxon rank test). The AUC and IVIM parameter maps are shown for
one scan session (Fig. 2) including the delineation of the tumor. Most
parameter maps clearly visualized the tumor volume and comparison of the
heterogeneity between AUC and Fp or D* showed an inverse trend. In this
preliminary dataset, differences in D* showed no clear relation with response
as predicted by the AUC (Fig. 3a). However, Fp against AUC showed an inverse trend
for the percentage difference between the two scans per patient (Fig. 3b).
Based on the AUC
during-before threshold from our previous study, median
Fp
during-before is also able to discriminate the same patients (based
on increase/decrease of Fp change). Later, when all patients received surgery,
outcome will be verified with pathology.
Conclusion
In
five patients with esophageal cancer it was found that IVIM-MRI is feasible and
that registration is required to obtain a good fit of the IVIM parameters. Although
this study included a limited number of patients, Fp seems the most promising
parameter among the perfusion-related IVIM parameters for response prediction. We
will continue to include more patients to verify whether IVIM-MRI can replace or
possibly complement DCE-MRI for response assessment in esophageal cancer by
comparing it with pathological outcome.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Heethuis et al., (2015) Eur Radiol. Submitted
2. Mandard A, Dalibard F,
Mandard J (1994) Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative
chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations.
Cancer 2680–2686.
3. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand
D, et al. (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent
motion MR imaging. Radiology 168:497–505.
4. Lagendijk JJW, Raaymakers BW, Raaijmakers AJE, et al. (2008) MRI/linac
integration. Radiother. Oncol 86(1), 25-29.
5. Jia, Q. J.,
Zhang, S. X., Chen, W. B., et al. (2014). Initial experience of correlating
parameters of intravoxel incoherent motion and dynamic contrast-enhanced
magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur Radiol,
3076–3087.
6. Yuan, M.,
Zhang, Y.-D., Zhu, C., et al. (2015). Comparison of intravoxel incoherent
motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for
differentiating lung cancer from benign solitary pulmonary lesions. J. Magn.
Reson. Imaging, 00:000–000.
7. Jezzard P, Balaban RS (1995) Correction
for geometric distortion in echo planar images from B0 field variations. Magn
Reson Med 34:65-73
8. Guyader J-M, Bernardin L,
Douglas NHM, et al. (2014) Influence of image registration on apparent
diffusion coefficient images computed from free-breathing diffusion MR images
of the abdomen. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:315:330.