Benjamin King Hong Law1, Ann D King1, Kunwar S Bhatia1, Anil T Ahuja1, Brigette B Ma2, David Ka-Wai Yeung2, Yi-Xiang Wang1, and Jing Yuan3
1Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, 2Department of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, 3Medical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong
Synopsis
Amide proton transfer (APT) imaging is a promising functional MRI
technique that investigates the chemical exchange processes between free water
and mobile amide protons in cancers. It is sensitive to small variations in
these amide protons but the potential value of APT imaging in head and neck
cancer is unknown. We have shown APT imaging of head and neck cancer is
feasible, although the success rate varies with tumour site. No difference was
found between the APT parameters of undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma
and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in this small preliminary study, but larger
studies are needed.Purpose
Amide proton transfer (APT) imaging is a promising functional MRI
technique (1-4) that investigates the chemical exchange processes between free
water and mobile amide protons in cancer proteins/peptides and is sensitive to
small variations in these amide protons. The potential value of APT in head and
neck cancer is unknown (5). The aim of this preliminary study was to determine
whether APT imaging could be performed successfully in head and neck cancers,
and whether it could detect differences between undifferentiated nasopharyngeal
carcinoma (NPC) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).
Methods
Patients
This prospective
study was performed with local institutional board approval and written
informed consent. 20 consecutive patients with undifferentiated NPC and 20
consecutive patients with head and neck SCC were recruited.
Image acquisition
Patients were
scanned on a Philips Achieva TX 3-T scanner with a body coil for radiofrequency
transmission and a 16-channel neurovascular phased-array coil for reception.
T2-weighted images were used to localize the primary tumour and APT was
performed through the slice with the greatest tumour diameter using a
single-slice TSE sequence with chemical shift-selective fat suppression.
Localized high-order shimming was performed to reduce ΔB0. A baseline image
without application of the saturation pulse was acquired first, and then the
saturated images at positive and negative offsets were obtained in an
interleaved fashion at (±0.25, ±0.5, ±1, ±1.5, ±2, ±2.5, ±3, ±3.5, ±4, ±4.5,
±5, ±5.5, ±6.5, ±7.5) parts per million (ppm). Saturation was obtained using a
continuous rectangular RF pulse with a B1 field strength of 2 μT and duration
of 200 ms. Other imaging parameters were: FOV, 230 × 230mm2; voxel
size, 2×2mm2; slice thickness, 4 mm; TE/TR = 8 ms/2000 ms; echo
train length (ETL), 14; SENSE factor, 2; partial Fourier factor, 0.7.
Image processing and data analysis
Data processing
was performed using a Matlab (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) program.
The voxel-wise Z spectrum was fitted by a 12th-order polynomial model, and the
fitted curve was then interpolated to a finer resolution of 0.001 ppm. The
interpolated Z spectra were shifted along the offset axis to correct for ΔB0.
The APT effect was quantified by calculating the asymmetric magnetization
transfer ratio (MTRasym) at the offset of 3.5ppm The MTRasym image (APTw image)
at 3.5ppm and ΔB0 map were produced by calculating the voxel-wise MTRasym and
ΔB0 values. In addition, the voxel-wise coefficient of determination R2 was
also calculated to evaluate the goodness-of-fit of Z-spectrum fitting. The
solid tumour area was contoured (excluding necrosis), the APT mean, standard
deviation (SD), skewness and kurtosis were measured and compared between NPCs
and SCCs using the Mann Whitney U-test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically
significant difference.
Results
40 patients with head and neck cancer (31 male, 9 female, mean age of
55.7) underwent APT imaging. APT was successful in 19/20 (95%) NPCs (figure 1) and
13/20 (65%) SCCs (figure 2). APT was unsuccessful in SCC sites in the
hypopharynx (2/6), larynx (2/3), tongue (2/5) and oropharynx (1/6). No
significant differences were found between the APT parameters of NPC and SCC
(Table 1).
Discussion
The APT Imaging protocol was set up for use in the head and neck. The
technique was successful in a high percentage of tumours in the nasopharynx which
is a site less prone to movement. However, it was less successful in SCC which
involved other sites along the aerodigestive tract where it failed in one
third of patients. It was especially difficult to perform in the larynx where
artifact from the adjacent airway and movement degraded the images.
Unlike other functional MRI techniques such as diffusion weighted imaging
(DWI) (6), dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI (7) and proton magnetic
resonance spectroscopy (MRS) (8), APT imaging was unable to show any
significant difference in the APT parameters of NPC and SCC. However the sample size in
this preliminary study was small and in addition the MTRasym was small, so a longer and stronger saturation pulse may be needed in
future studies. In addition because of time constraints currently data can only be
obtained from one slice which limits the ability of APT to study heterogeneity
of the whole tumour.
Conclusion
APT imaging of
head and neck cancers is feasible, although the success rate varies with tumour
site. No differences between the APT parameters of NPC and SCC have been shown
in these preliminary results but larger studies are needed.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the valuable
technical advice from Dr. Jinyuan Zhou from the Johns Hopkins University. The
work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Research
Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project
No. 141070/14 and SEG CUHK_02).References
1.
Sun
PZ, Zhou J, Sun W, Huang J, van Zijl PC. Suppression of lipid artifacts in
amide proton transfer (APT) imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005;54(1):222–225.
2.
Lu J,
Zhou J, Cai C, Cai S, Chen Z. Observation of true and pseudo NOE signals using
CEST-MRI and CEST-MRS sequences with and without lipid suppression. Magn Reson
Med. 2015;73(4):1615-1622.
3.
Zhou
J, Blakeley JO, Hua J, Kim M, Laterra J, Pomper MG, van Zijl PCM. Practical
data acquisition method for human brain tumor amide proton transfer (APT)
imaging. Magn Reson Med 2008;60(4) 842–849.
4.
Zhou J,
Hong X, Zhao X, Gao J-H, Yuan J. APT-weighted and NOE-weighted image contrasts
in glioma with different RF saturation powers based on magnetization transfer
ratio asymmetry analyses. Magn Reson Med 2013;70(2):320–327.
5.
Yuan
J, Chen S, King AD, Zhou J, Bhatia KS, Zhang Q, Yeung DK, Wei J, Mok GS, Wang
YX. Amide proton transfer-weighted imaging of the head and neck at 3 T: a
feasibility study on healthy human subjects and patients with head and neck
cancer. NMR Biomed. 2014;27(10):1239-1247.
6. Fong D, Bhatia KS, Yeung D, King AD.
Diagnostic
accuracy of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, head
and neck lymphoma and squamous cell carcinoma at the primary site. Oral Oncololgy 2010;46(8):603-606.
7. Lee FK,
King AD, Ma BB, Yeung DK. Dynamic contrast enhancement magnetic resonance
imaging (DCE-MRI) for differential diagnosis in head and neck cancers. Eur J
Radiol 2012;81(4):784-788.
8.
King AD, Yeung DK, Ahuja AT, Yuen EH, Ho SF, Tse GM, van
Hasselt. Human cervical lymphadenopathy: evaluation with in vivo 1H-MRS at
1.5T. Clin Radiol. 2005;60(5):592-598.