Lynne E. Bilston1,2, Lauriane Jugé 1,3, and Roger Bourne4
1Neuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, NSW, Australia, 2Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia, 3School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia, 4Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia
Synopsis
MR
elastography (MRE) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) techniques are
sensitive to microstructural changes, as reflected in the tissue stiffness and
water diffusion properties respectively. These results showed
that mechanical and diffusion properties varied between fresh and fixed
prostate tissue, but were not highly correlated with each other, suggesting
that multifrequency MRE and DWI have the potential to be complementary imaging
tools for tracking the alterations in soft tissue microstructure, such as those
that occur in cancer and other diseases. Introduction
The best available prostate cancer imaging method,
multi-parametric MRI
1,2, is rapidly being adopted worldwide to assist
targeted biopsy, risk stratification, and treatment selection. However the mpMRI
protocol is still immature and has enormous potential for improvement. Prostate
cancer is characterized by tissue structure changes that are often detectable
by diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI), and potentially by MR elastography (MRE)
3. MRE
and DWI characterize different tissue structural parameters, and could provide
complementary information, particularly in circumstances where the tissue
undergoes changes that may alter mechanical parameters and diffusion concurrently.
The aim of this study was to compare mechanical properties and diffusion
parameters in fresh human prostate tissue and to assess the effects of formalin
fixation.
Methods
This study was approved by the local
human research ethics committee. One
whole prostate was imaged, suspended on a rod inserted through the urethra4, immediately following surgery and again
after formalin fixation for 48 hr and soaking in
saline for 24 hr. MR imaging was performed on a
preclinical MRI scanner (Bruker 94/20 Biospec), with
a 72 mm volume coil.
DWI:
A pulse-gradient spin-echo DWI sequence was used,
with b-values 0 and 1600 s/mm2, δ/Δ = 5/20 ms, 6 gradient
directions, TE/TR = 28/2000 ms; FOV 48×48 mm, matrix 32×32, slice
thickness 2 mm, gap 2 mm.
MRE:
MRE was performed using a spin echo MRE
sequence3 TR/TE=1880/28 ms, matrix = 64x64, FOV = 64x64 mm, nine
1 mm thick axial slices, at 600, 800 and 1000 Hz using a custom-designed setup.
Anatomical Imaging:
T2-weighted images (TR/TE=3500/17 ms,
RARE factor = 8, matrix 256x256, FOV=64x64 mm) were collected in matching
geometry to visualise the anatomy of the prostate.
Analysis:
The fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean
diffusivity (MD) were calculated from the diffusion data, and the shear modulus
(G*) at each frequency was calculated using custom software5.
Correlations between elastography and diffusion parameters were calculated
using Matlab (r2013b).
Results
Tissue shear modulus increased with
frequency for both fresh (see Figure 1) and fixed tissue, consistent with the
power-law typically observed in soft tissues. The fixed tissue was approximately
50kPa stiffer than the fresh tissue (Figure 2). G* was higher in the fibromuscular
stroma anterior to the urethra than in the more glandular transition and
peripheral zones. This difference was more marked in the fresh tissue and at
higher frequency (Figure 2). Correlations between elastography parameters and diffusion
parameters were weak (correlation coefficients are shown in Table 1). Sample
correlation plots are shown in Figure 3 for diffusion parameters with the
elastography data at 600 Hz.
Conclusions
Fixation of the prostate tissue substantially
increased the tissue stiffness, but altered diffusion parameters to a lesser
degree. The increased stiffness is likely a result of the chemical crosslinking
between proteins in the tissue during fixation. This fixation did not appear to
substantially alter the degree to which stiffness increased with frequency,
possibly because the cross-linking that occurs during fixation with formalin does
not greatly alter the fractality of the microstructure
6. Diffusion and elastography parameters were only
very weakly correlated, indicating these modalities provide complementary
information about tissue microstructure.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Alice Hatt for her
assistance in adapting the MRE setup for use on ex vivo prostate tissue. Lynne
Bilston is supported by an NHMRC senior research fellowship. References
1. Thompson, J.E., et al., Multiparametric
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Diagnostic Biopsy Detects Significant
Prostate Cancer and could Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies and Over Detection: A
Prospective Study. J. Urology, 2014. 192(1): p. 67-74.
2. Turkbey, B., et al., Prostate Cancer:
Can Multiparametric MR Imaging Help Identify Patients Who Are Candidates for
Active Surveillance? Radiology, 2013. 268(1): p. 144-152.
3. Sahebjavaher,
R.S., et al., MR elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging of ex vivo
prostate cancer: quantitative comparison to histopathology. NMR Biomed,
2015. 28(1): p. 89-100.
4. Bourne,
R., et al., Effect of formalin fixation on biexponential modeling of diffusion
decay in prostate tissue. Magn Res Med, 2013. 70(4): p. 1160-1166.
5. Sinkus,
R., et al., Viscoelastic shear properties of in vivo breast lesions measured by
MR elastography. Magn Reson Imaging, 2005. 23(2): p. 159-65.
6. Lambert,
S., et. al., Bridging Three Orders of Magnitude:
Multiple Scattered Waves Sense Fractal Microscopic Structures via Dispersion. Physical
Review Letters, 2015. 115(9),
094301.