Matthew R Orton1, Mihaela Rata1, Dow-Mu Koh1,2, Maria Bali1,2, Robert Grimm3, David J Collins1, James A d'Arcy1, and Martin O Leach1
1CRUK Cancer Imaging Centre, Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom, 2Departent of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom, 3Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany
Synopsis
Liver perfusion and function can be assessed
using gadoxetic acid combined with DCE-MRI imaging and pharmacokinetic (PK)
modelling. Whilst compartmental PK models give a good account of the
contrast changes over the first five minutes of enhancement, the Patlak graphical
approach is a simpler alternative that is more easily implemented. Patlak
evaluation requires the specification of a delay time after which the initial
transients in the uptake curves have decayed, so the purpose of this abstract
is to present a preliminary evaluation of the sensitivity of liver uptake rate
estimates to the Patlak delay time.
Background
Liver perfusion and function can be assessed using the hepatobiliary
contrast agent gadoxetic acid combined with DCE-MRI imaging and
pharmacokinetic (PK) modelling. One such
PK model has been proposed by Sourbron et al.1 and adds an
additional compartment to the standard dual-input one-compartment liver model
to describe one-way transport from the extra-cellular space into the
intra-cellular space. This model gives a
good account of the contrast changes seen in liver over the first five minutes
or so of enhancement, and makes the assumption that in this time there is negligible
loss of contrast from the imaged tissue due to biliary transport. The graphical approach developed by Patlak et
al.2 makes the same assumptions and is a simpler and more easily
implemented technique than non-linear model fitting. Patlak evaluation requires the specification
of a delay time after which the initial transients in the uptake curves have
decayed – the slope of the Patlak plot after this time is the hepatic uptake
rate parameter that is of use in clinical liver function assessment. The purpose of this abstract is to present a
preliminary evaluation of the sensitivity to the delay time of the liver uptake
rate estimation from Patlak analysis.Methods
Four consented
patients were imaged at 1.5T using a MAGNETOM Aera (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) with a
prototype sequence with
view-sharing reconstruction, described in Figure 1. Three patients received gadoxetic
acid (Primovist at 0.1ml/kg
at 1ml/sec then 20ml saline at 1ml/sec), and one received gadoteric acid (Dotarem at 0.2ml/kg,
same delivery). Gadoteric acid is not taken up
by the liver, so this patient acted as a negative control. Arterial input function (AIF) data were
obtained from the aorta, and flip-angle corrections (to account for in-flow
effects) were used to ensure a pre-contrast blood T1 of 1200ms in
each patient. To reduce the effect of
noise, arterial data were fitted with a previously described AIF model3,
and plasma concentrations were obtained assuming a haematocrit of 0.42, see Figure
2 for an example. Algebraic integration
of the AIF was used in the Patlak computation, which performs linear regression
of$$$\;C_\mathrm{t}(t)\;/\;C_\mathrm{p}(t)\;$$$onto$$$\;\left[\int_0^tC_\mathrm{p}(s)\;ds\right]\;/\;C_\mathrm{p}(t)\;$$$for$$$\;t\;$$$greater than some time$$$\;t^*,\;$$$from which the slope and intercept are estimates of$$$\;K_\mathrm{i}\;$$$(min-1, liver uptake rate parameter) and
the distribution volume fraction respectively.
The delay term$$$\;t^*\;$$$was set to
0.25,$$$\;$$$0.5,$$$\;$$$1 and 2 minutes after the contrast arrival time. The Patlak model
assumes a single input function, whereas the Sourbron PK model considers a dual input to
account for contrast arriving from the hepatic portal vein. To make the comparison more direct the PK model
was simplified to consider only a single input, see Figure 3.
Results
Figure$$$\;$$$4 shows good visual
correlation between PK and Patlak estimates of$$$\;K_\mathrm{i}\;$$$ for the three Primovist patients, which is largely
reflected in the Spearman’s$$$\;$$$ρ statistics.
For patients$$$\;$$$2 and$$$\;$$$3 there is very little difference in the correlations
for all$$$\;t^*\leq\;$$$1$$$\;$$$min, while for patient$$$\;$$$1 the scatter plots indicate an increasingly
non-linear relationship as$$$\;t^*\;$$$decreases (probably linked to the long initial
transient seen in the uptake curve, see Figure 5). Estimates of$$$\;K_\mathrm{i}\;$$$in the Dotarem patient are
lower than the other patients (median$$$\;K_\mathrm{i}\;$$$from PK estimates:$$$\;$$$Primovist (patients 1-3):$$$\;$$$0.034,$$$\;$$$0.038,$$$\;$$$0.087$$$\;$$$min-1; Dotarem
(patient 4):$$$\;$$$0.011$$$\;$$$min-1), and the correlation between PK and Patlak
estimates is also weaker in this patient.
Figure$$$\;$$$5 shows maps of$$$\;K_\mathrm{i}\;$$$from the PK and Patlak estimates with$$$\;t^*=\;$$$0.5$$$\;$$$showing a very strong visual
correspondence. The graphs in this Figure
show a wide range of average curve shapes, and particularly highlight the
continued contrast uptake in the Primovist patients that is absent in the
Dotarem patient. Visualisation of the
gall bladder in the final dynamic volume confirmed that contrast had not
reached this organ during the scan for all patients, and so the no-loss
assumption for the Patlak analysis is satisfied.Discussion
These data suggest that$$$\;t^*=\;$$$0.5$$$\;$$$min may be a suitable value for Patlak analysis in future studies, although
the non-linear relationship between PK and Patlak estimates for all$$$\;t^*\;$$$in patient$$$\;$$$1 suggest that PK analysis may be necessary in some
circumstances. The non-linear
relationship was not observed for$$$\;t^*=\;$$$2$$$\;$$$min in this patient at the expense of
greater errors, suggesting that$$$\;t^*\geq\;$$$2 mins may be necessary to reduce the non-linearity. However, this would potentially require longer
scan times to reduce the Patlak analysis error to acceptable levels. Further work is needed to assess the impact
of a dual-input model – it is anticipated that the Patlak approach will be
invariant to the presence/absence of a portal input function since$$$\;t^*\;$$$can$$$\;$$$be chosen to be at a time where the arterial and portal plasma
concentrations are equal. This study
suggests that Patlak analysis is an effective method of quantifying liver
function from DCE-MRI data.Acknowledgements
CRUK and EPSRC support to the Cancer Imaging Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden Hospital in association with the MRC and Department of Health (England) (C1060/A10334, C1060/A16464) and NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and the Clinical Research Facility in Imaging at The Royal Marsden and the ICR.References
1. Sourbron S, Sommer WH, Reiser MF, Zech CJ. Combined quantification of
liver
perfusion and function with dynamic gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging.
Radiology. 2012; 263(3):874-83.
2. Patlak CS, Blasberg RG, Fenstermacher JD. Graphical evaluation of
blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. J
Cereb Blood
Flow Metab. 1983; 3(1):1-7.
3. Rata M, Collins DJ, Darcy J, Messiou C, Tunariu N, Desouza N, Young
H, Leach
MO, Orton MR. Assessment of repeatability and treatment response in
early phase
clinical trials using DCE-MRI: comparison of parametric analysis using
MR- and
CT-derived arterial input functions. Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(7):1991-8.
4. Winkelmann S, Schaeffter T, Koehler T, Eggers H, Doessel O. An
optimal radial profile order based on the Golden Ratio for time-resolved MRI.
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2007; 26(1):68-76.