Eric James Keller1, Laura Kulik2, James C. Carr1, Michael Markl1,3, and Jeremy Douglas Collins1
1Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States, 2Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States, 3Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
Synopsis
The success of surgical and transarterial therapies for
hepatocellular carcinoma relies on hepatic hemodynamics. Non-contrast 4D flow
MRI can quantify hepatic blood flow at the lobar arterial and portal vein levels
with a low relative error and clearly evaluate portosystemic shunts; however,
segmental flow quantification remains limited. By pairing 4D flow MRI with HCC
surveillance MR imaging, lobar flow per volume can also be assessed, providing
valuable information for surgical planning.Purpose
Liver cancer is the 3rd leading cause of cancer-related
deaths worldwide. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for 90% of these
cancers and often arises in the setting of liver cirrhosis. Treatment of HCC
can vary significantly depending on patient and disease characteristics, but
surgical resection, liver transplantation, and locoregional therapies are common
therapeutic approaches for early and intermediate HCC
1. The success of
these therapies share a common reliance on hepatic hemodynamics
2,3,
which have been challenging to assess non-invasively prior to the development
of 4D flow MRI. Although 4D flow MRI has been used previously to characterize
abdominal hemodynamics
4,5,
hepatic lobar and segmental flow are seldom assessed. Thus, we sought to
investigate the feasibility of non-invasively quantifying hepatic lobar and
segmental flow as well as the percent of hepatopedal flow in patients with
cirrhosis and imaging evidence of portal hypertension.
Methods
The study cohort consisted of 7 prospectively recruited
patients (age=55±11yrs, 2 women) with cirrhosis (4 Child-Pugh Grade A; 3 Grade
B) and sequelae of portal hypertension (splenomegaly and/or portosystemic
shunts) identified on HCC surveillance imaging. All subjects fasted prior to
undergoing non-contrast 4D flow MRI at 3T (MAGNETOM Skyra, Siemens Medical
Systems, Erlangen, Germany) with ECG- and respiratory navigator gating in an
oblique axial imaging volume to include the hepatic and splenic vasculature
with the navigator positioned at the lung-spleen interface. Pulse sequence
parameters: spatial res=2.1-2.4 x 2.1-2.4 x 2.5-2.7mm; temporal
res=40.8-44.0ms; flip angle=7°; TE=2.6-3.1ms; k-t-GRAPPA R=5; VENC=50cm/s. Scan
data were first corrected for background phase offset errors using MatLab (the
MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). A PC-MRA was generated to permit 3D segmentation
of the abdominal vasculature in Mimics (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) that was
used to restrict the velocity field to the vasculature for visualization and
quantification of the liver hemodynamics in EnSight (CEI, Apex, NC, USA). Flow
quantification was assessed using relative error in flow input and output at
lobar and segmental branch points in arterial and portal systems. Percent hepatopedal
flow was calculated by dividing non-portosystemic shunt flow by the total flow
entering the portal system via the superior mesenteric and splenic veins. Hepatic
lobar volumes were also measured on 3D T1-weighted gradient recalled echo (GRE)
imaging. The sum of left and right lobar arterial and portal flow was indexed
to 100 mL liver volume and compared via two-tailed t-tests.
Results
Intra-hepatic portal and arterial blood flows were clearly
visualized for all patients without the use of contrast. Example portal flow
visualization and relative error calculation is provided in Figure 1. Relative
error in flow quantification was low (<10%) for lobar portal and arterial
divisions [5.8±2.0% (arterial); 8.8±8.7% (portal)], but significantly higher
for segmental arterial and portal divisions [21.9±18.5% (arterial); 30±14.7%
(portal)]. Hepatopedal flow ranged from 11-100%, capturing shunt flows ranging
from 0.57-14.63ml/cycle (Figure 2). No significant difference was found between
right and left lobar flow (ml/min) per 100ml liver volume [49.0±42.6 (right) v.
38.6±20.0 (left); p=0.60]; however, there
was heterogeneity of flow with lobar flow indices ranging from 25.5-134.0 for
the right lobe and 18.2-75.4 for the left lobe (Figure 3).
Discussion
These results illustrate the potential of non-contrast abdominal
4D flow MRI to quantify blood flow at the lobar arterial and portal vein level
with a low relative error, and clearly evaluate portosystemic shunts. Such
information may be useful for HCC treatment planning. For example, the
significant variance in right and left lobar flow per volume suggests liver
parenchymal perfusion may not be as uniform as previously thought. By combining
4D flow MRI with surveillance MR imaging for HCC, lobar flow indices could be
assessed and the extent of systemic shunting quantified to guide surgical
planning. In terms of future research, one could use this level of hemodynamic
detail to understand whether a higher lobar flow index predicts better survival
of smaller grafts, differential lobar arterial flow predicts success of
transarterial therapies, or certain portal flow patterns proceed portal vein
thrombosis. Finally, it is also worth noting that 4D flow MRI assessment of
segmental flow remains limited and will likely require better spatial resolution
to achieve that level of detail.
Conclusion
Accurate, non-invasive assessment of hepatic lobar arterial
and portal blood flow has the potential to help predict complications which
arise in the setting of cirrhosis and guide surgical and transarterial
therapies for HCC. Such hemodynamic detail can be achieved by pairing
non-contrast 4D flow MRI with HCC surveillance MR imaging in this patient
population. Although segmental flow quantification is possible with 4D flow
MRI, its lower internal consistency is a limiting factor.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Radiological Society of North America Research
& Education Foundation (Seed Grant #1218).References
1. European
Association For The Study Of The L, European Organisation For R, Treatment Of
C. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular
carcinoma. Journal of hepatology. Apr
2012;56(4):908-943.
2. Ben-Haim M, Emre S, Fishbein TM, et
al. Critical graft size in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation:
impact of the recipient's disease. Liver
transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the
Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society. Nov
2001;7(11):948-953.
3. Lewandowski RJ, Geschwind JF, Liapi
E, Salem R. Transcatheter intraarterial therapies: rationale and overview. Radiology. Jun 2011;259(3):641-657.
4. Roldan-Alzate A, Frydrychowicz A,
Said A, et al. Impaired regulation of portal venous flow in response to a meal
challenge as quantified by 4D flow MRI. Journal
of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. Oct 2015;42(4):1009-1017.
5. Stankovic Z, Csatari Z, Deibert P,
et al. Normal and altered three-dimensional portal venous hemodynamics in
patients with liver cirrhosis. Radiology.
Mar 2012;262(3):862-873.