Proton Density Water Fraction as a Measurement of Breast Fibroglandular Tissue Volume and Concentration
Roberta M Strigel1,2,3, Leah Henze Bancroft2, Diego Hernando1, and Scott B Reeder1,2,3,4,5,6

1Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States, 2Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States, 3Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States, 4Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States, 5Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States, 6Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States

Synopsis

Elevated breast density confers an increased risk for breast cancer. Accurate and precise measurement of the amount of fibroglandular breast tissue has potential to serve as a quantitative imaging biomarker of risk for the development of breast cancer. In this work we introduce novel, confounder corrected chemical-shift encoded (CSE)-MRI techniques to measure the proton density water fraction (PDWF). Estimation of PDWF with CSE-MRI addresses potential confounders that negatively impact accuracy, precision, and reproducibility, enabling protocol independent quantification of the volume and concentration of fibroglandular tissue in the breast.

Purpose

Women with mammographically dense breasts have an increased risk for breast cancer.1 Quantification of breast density with mammography has inherent limitations.2,3 MRI-based methods to measure the amount and concentration of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) have potential advantages, including the fundamental ability to distinguish fibroglandular from adipose tissue, however variability has also been described between different MRI-based methods.3-7 In this work we propose to use chemical-shift encoded (CSE)-MRI techniques8-10 that correct for all known confounders of the MRI signal that could negatively impact the accuracy and precision of MR-based quantification of FGT. Thus, the purpose of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of confounder-corrected CSE-MRI techniques to estimate the proton density water fraction (PDWF) in order to quantify the volume and concentration of FGT in the breast.

Methods

Six volunteers were consented to undergo confounder-corrected CSE-MRI at 3T (Discovery 750w, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI) of the bilateral breasts using an 8-channel phased array breast coil (GE Healthcare). Images were obtained with an investigational version of a commercially available sequence (IDEAL IQ, GE Healthcare) with a 32 cm axial field-of-view, bandwidth of ± 90.91, TR = 8.8ms, and six echoes (TEs = 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, 4.1, 5.2, and 6.2 ms). A low flip angle of 1o was used to minimize T1 related bias (see Figure 1). Further, images were obtained with two protocols, each with different spatial resolution. Protocol 1: voxel 1.4 x 2.0 x 3.0 mm3 and Protocol 2: voxel 2.0 x 2.2 x 5.0 mm3. Scan time for Protocols 1 and 2 was 105s and 60s, respectively.

The process used to calculate the FGT concentration is illustrated in Figure 2. Separation of fat and water from the acquired echo images uses a complex fitting algorithm including correction for R2* (=1/T2*) and spectral modeling of fat.11,12 The resulting fat and water separated images are used to generate the PDWF map, which we define as $$$ PDWF = \rho_{W} / (\rho_{W} + \rho_{F}) $$$, where $$$ \rho_{W} $$$ and $$$ \rho_{F} $$$ are the proton densities of water and fat, respectively. PDWF was calculated using magnitude discrimination to avoid noise bias.13 For this proof of concept implementation, the chest wall was excluded from the map through manual segmentation while skin removal was accomplished using an erosion operation in Matlab (MathWorks, Natick, MA). Segmentation was performed over a 6cm axial slab covering the central portion of the bilateral breasts for both protocols, producing the regions of interest (ROI)s used in this analysis. The total volume of both breasts (VB) was calculated using the ROI. The volume of FGT (VFGT) was calculated by integration of the PDWF maps over the ROI. Concentration of FGT is defined as VFGT/VB x 100. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to compare VFGT between protocols.

Results

Figure 3 lists the VFGT and FGT concentrations for the six volunteers by protocol. Both volume and concentration of FGT correspond with expected results given the visual appearance of the FGT. Bland-Altman plot of the VFGT is shown in Figure 4 demonstrating excellent agreement between methods.

Discussion

The measured volume and concentration of FGT demonstrated excellent agreement between the two CSE-MRI protocols. Small differences are likely due to limitations in our manual segmentation technique, which resulted in inconsistent ROIs between studies and inadvertent inclusion of pectoralis muscle in some cases. This can be corrected by implementing an automated segmentation technique.

Our CSE-MRI method used to quantify the volume and concentration of FGT is based on a fundamental property of tissue, ie: PDWF. This approach is differs from the subjective evaluation of breast density in routine clinical practice, ie: the mammographic appearance of radiodense FGT relative to radiolucent fat, which is limited due to intra- and inter-reader variability14 and lack of quantitation. Quantitative mammographic methods are limited by 2D technique, breast compression/orientation, ionizing radiation, and differing acquisition parameters.2,3 In the proposed MRI method, the PDWF reflects a quantitative measurement of FGT corrected for relevant confounding factors over a wide range of acquisition protocols. This technique eliminates the dependence on voxel size avoiding measurement error caused by partial volume averaging of fat and FGT (unavoidable in the breast, where fat and FGT are intermingled), and is thus robust to changes in spatial resolution, as demonstrated.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated the use of CSE-MRI to create a PDWF map and quantify the volume and concentration of FGT in the breast. Further studies are needed to confirm these results, improve the segmentation method, and determine if volume or concentration of FGT is the most predictive quantitative biomarker for risk of breast cancer.

Acknowledgements

Support from the NIH (UL1TR00427, R01 DK083380, R01 DK088925, R01 DK100651, K24 DK102595, T32CA009206) and GE Healthcare.

References

1. Boyd NF, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. NEJM 2007;356(3):227-236.

2. Boyd NF, et al. Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer. J NCI 2010;102(16):1224-1237.

3. O'Flynn EA, et al. Alternative screening for dense breasts: MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204(2):W141-149.

4. Chang DH, et al. Comparison of breast density measured on MR images acquired using fat-suppressed versus nonfat-suppressed sequences. Med Phys 2011;38(11):5961-5968.

5. Chen JH, et al. Impact of positional difference on the measurement of breast density using MRI. Medical Physics 2015;42(5):2268-2275.

6. Clendenen TV, et al. Comparison of 3-point Dixon imaging and fuzzy C-means clustering methods for breast density measurement. JMRI 2013;38(2):474-481.

7. Nie K, et al. Impact of skin removal on quantitative measurement of breast density using MRI. Med Phys 2010;37(1):227-233.

8. Hines CD, et al. T(1) independent, T(2) (*) corrected chemical shift based fat-water separation with multi-peak fat spectral modeling is an accurate and precise measure of hepatic steatosis. JMRI 2011;33(4):873-881.

9. Meisamy S, et al. Quantification of hepatic steatosis with T1-independent, T2-corrected MR imaging with spectral modeling of fat: blinded comparison with MR spectroscopy. Radiology 2011;258(3):767-775.

10. Rehm JL, et al. Proton density fat-fraction is an accurate biomarker of hepatic steatosis in adolescent girls and young women. Eur Radiol 2015;25(10):2921-2930.

11. Hernando D, et al. Robust water/fat separation in the presence of large field inhomogeneities using a graph cut algorithm. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2010;63(1):79-90.

12. Yu H, Shimakawa A, McKenzie CA, Brodsky E, Brittain JH, Reeder SB. Multiecho water-fat separation and simultaneous R2* estimation with multifrequency fat spectrum modeling. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2008;60(5):1122-1134.

13. Liu CY, et al. Fat quantification with IDEAL gradient echo imaging: correction of bias from T(1) and noise. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2007;58(2):354-364.

14. Ciatto S, et al. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 2005;14(4):269-275.

Figures

Figure 1: Minimizing the effect of T1-weighting. In-phase axial T1-weighted dual-echo FSPGR images of the breasts at four different flip angles and otherwise constant acquisition parameters demonstrating residual T1-weighting with ≥ 3o flip angle due to the long T1 of fibroglandular tissue. FA = Flip Angle.

Figure 2: Schematic demonstrating the generation of the masked proton density water fraction (PDWF) map. CSE = Chemical Shift Encoded; W = Water; F = Fat; CC = Confounder-Corrected; TE = Echo Time; MIP = Maximum Intensity Projection.

Figure 3: Volume and Concentration of Fibroglandular Tissue (FGT). FGT concentration calculated from the proton density water fraction (PDWF) as the volume of FGT divided by the volume of the breast. Results correspond with the subjective depiction of the quantity of FGT in the corresponding water/PDWF images.

Figure 4: Bland-Altman Plot. Comparison of the two confounder corrected chemical shift encoded-MRI protocols for calculation of fibroglandular tissue volume.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
2480