Ella F Jones1, Lisa J Wilmes1, Wen Li1, Jessica Gibbs1, David C Newitt1, John Kornak2, Evelyn Proctor1, Bonnie N Joe1, and Nola M Hylton1
1Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, United States, 2Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, United States
Synopsis
The
purpose of this study was to assess breast tissue measurements using diffusion MRI
techniques in repeated studies to evaluate the variability of ADC and FA
measurements within- and between-subjects.Purpose
Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fractional anisotropy (FA) are non-contrast MRI measurements
of water mobility that reflect tissue microenvironment. These measurements have gained research
interest for the assessment of breast
cancer characteristics
1,2. As we continue to advance imaging techniques for assessing tumors and their response to therapy, it
is important to understand the underlying variability of these imaging
measurements (both within- and between-subjects) in order to correctly
interpret the importance of changes in patients and determine the optimal
course of treatment. The purpose of this
study was to assess breast tissue measurements using diffusion MRI techniques in
repeated studies to evaluate the variability of ADC and FA measurements within-
and between-subjects.
Materials and Methods
With institutional review board approval, an
estimation of variability and repeatability of ADC and FA measurements in
normal breast tissue was conducted in 13 normal pre-menopausal subjects. MR diffusion imaging was performed on a 1.5T
scanner (Signa LX, GE Healthcare, WI) using a bilateral 8-channel phased array
breast coil (Invivo, FL), utilizing an axial, fat suppressed, echo-plane
imaging (EPI) sequence. ADC was measured with a 3 direction, 4 b-value (0, 100,
600, 800 s/mm2) DWI acquisition as defined in the ACRIN 6698 study
protocol
3 and along with FA,
it was also measured with a 6 direction, 2 b-value
(0, 600 s/mm
2) DTI acquisition. In the test/retest protocol, all
subjects were removed from the scanner and repositioned between the test and
retest data acquisitions. The same day
test-retest design was used to minimize hormonal induced variation in the
breast tissue measurements
4. Parametric maps
were generated for ADC and FA based on methods previously described
5,6.
Between- and within-subject variability of measurements was assessed by the
coefficient of variation (
CV = standard deviation, SD, divided by the mean). Scatter-plots and Spearman’s rank
correlation were used to assess the agreement between test and retest
results. Bland-Altman plots of
difference vs. mean of measurements from test-retest were used to assess the
repeatability of measurements. The coefficient of repeatability (
CR =1.96*SD
diff, where SD
diff = standard deviation of
measurement difference from test and retest) was used to assess the reliability of the measurements of normal breast
tissue across subjects
7.
Results
The between-subject variation (
bCV) of DWI derived ADC ranged from
14.5-14.7%, DTI derived ADC was 12.2-15.3% and FA was 26.7-27.2% at test and
retest. The within-subject
CV (
wCV) was 3.83% for ADC from DWI, 4.88%
from DTI and 11.2% for FA. A strong correlation
between ADC test and retest measurements was observed in both DWI and DTI acquisitions
with correlation coefficient of 0.965 (95% CI (0.80, 1.00), p< 0.0001) and
0.940 (95% CI (0.75, 1.00), p< 0.0001) respectively. A weaker correlation was observed in FA (ρ= 0.747, 95% CI
(0.24, 0.98), p = 0.05). The
CR of ADC from
DWI was 0.219x10
-3 mm
2/s (11%; average ADC
test
= 1.99 x10
-3 mm
2/s and ADC
retest = 1.98 x10
-3
mm
2/s) and was 0.295 x10
-3 mm
2/s from DTI
(14%; average ADC
test = 2.09 x10
-3 mm
2/s and
ADC
retest = 2.10 x10
-3 mm
2/s). The
CR of FA was 0.051 (32%) with average FA
test
= 0.159 and FA
retest = 0.168. Scatter-plots and Bland-Altman plots of
ADC and FA measurements from test and retest are shown in Figure 1 and 2
respectively. The plots further indicate the improved correlation and
repeatability for both Mean ADC measures vs. Mean FA.
Discussion
Both repeatability and within-subject variance
of DTI derived ADC and FA were in agreement with previously published findings
8. Compared to DWI, DTI acquired ADC had higher
wCV and
CR values. Influence of
tissue location and b-value on breast DTI measurements may account for the increased
variance of ADC values
8. The weaker test-retest correlation and
high
CR found in FA indicates that the FA measurement is both less repeatable
and less reliable compared with ADC and changes observed in patients using FA
as an imaging metric should be interpret with caution.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Partridge SC, Mullins CD, Kurland BF, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values for discriminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: effects of lesion type and size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(6):1664-1673.
2. Partridge SC, Ziadloo A, Murthy R, et al. Diffusion tensor MRI: preliminary anisotropy measures and mapping of breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31(2):339-347.
3. Hylton N, Partridge S, Rosen M, Chenevert T. ACRIN 6698: Diffusion Weighted MR Imaging Biomarkers for Assessment of Breast Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment: A sub-study of the I-SPY 2 TRIAL (Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging And moLecular Analysis). Volume 2015. https://www.acrin.org/Portals/0/Protocols/6698/Protocol-ACRIN6698_v2.29.12_active_ForOnline.pdf; 2012.
4. Muller-Schimpfle M, Ohmenhauser K, Stoll P, Dietz K, Claussen CD. Menstrual cycle and age: influence on parenchymal contrast medium enhancement in MR imaging of the breast. Radiology 1997;203(1):145-149.
5. Basser PJ, Pierpaoli C. Microstructural and Physiological Features of Tissues Elucidated by Quantitative-Diffusion-Tensor MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance, Series B 1996;111(3):209-219.
6. Wilmes LJ, McLaughlin RL, Newitt DC, et al. High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging for monitoring breast cancer treatment response. Academic radiology 2013;20(5):581-589.
7. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307-310.
8. Partridge SC, Murthy RS, Ziadloo A, White SW, Allison KH, Lehman CD. Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of the normal breast. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2010;28(3):320-328.