Lisa J Wilmes1, Ek-Tsoon Tan2, Evelyn Proctor1, Wen Li1, Jessica Gibbs1, Nola Hylton1, and David C Newitt1
1University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States, 2GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY, United States
Synopsis
Diffusion
weighted imaging has shown promise for assessing tumor response to treatment,
but suffers from gradient nonlinearity and image distortion that may adversely affect
quantitative accuracy. This work evaluates corrections for image distortion (susceptibility-induced
and eddy current) and bias from gradient non-linearity (GN) on breast tumor DTI
metrics prior to treatment (T0) and at an early-treatment time point (T1), in
six breast cancer patients undergoing neaoadjuvnt chemotherapy. Both GN and distortion
correction had significant effects on tumor ADC and FA values at T0 and T1. The
addition of distortion correction also improved the alignment of DTI and
DCE-MRI tumor ROIs.
Introduction
In studies
of breast cancer, DWI increased diagnostic accuracy and showed promise as a
biomarker of early treatment response1. However, one limitation of
breast DWI is that standard echo-planar imaging (EPI) suffers from geometric
distortions resulting from the susceptibility-induced variation in the B0 field
and eddy-currents from diffusion-encoding gradients. These distortion effects
occur in addition to gradient non-linearity (GN) effects, which have been shown
to affect the quantitative accuracy of breast DWI2. A robust method for
correcting geometric distortions in the brain utilizes an extra reverse phase
gradient (RPG) acquisition to estimate the B0 map3. This correction
strategy has also been recently applied to breast DWI4and has was
shown to improve the accuracy of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) metrics
measured in a phantom with a similar trend seen for in vivo DTI measurements in
breast tumors. However, there is little information about the effects of RPG
based correction algorithms on the quantification of breast tumor DTI metrics in
longitudinal studies of neoajuvant (pre-surgery) treatment response.
This work evaluates
the effects of GN correction and the addition of correction for
susceptibility-induced distortion and distortion due to eddy currents on diffusion
tensor imaging (DTI) metrics measured in malignant breast tumors prior to
treatment (T0) and at an early treatment time-point (T1). Methods
In vivo diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was acquired
in 6 patients with locally-advanced breast cancer enrolled in an institutional
review board-approved, HIPAA compliant, clinical trial. All patients gave
informed consent and DTI data were acquired prior to initiation of treatment
and after one cycle of taxane-based therapy.
Bilateral
axial MRI were acquired on a 1.5T whole body scanner (GE Healthcare, Waukesha,
WI) using an 8-channel breast coil (Invivo, Gainesville, FL). A standard
echo-planar DTI acquisition was performed (6 directions, b=0,600s/mm2)
along with a corresponding reversed-polarity-gradient (RPG) acquisition (1 direction,
b=0, 600s/mm2). Standard and corrected parametric ADC and FA maps
were calculated from DTI data. The EPI effects (phase-encoding distortion from
inherent B0 susceptibility) were corrected using the RPG algorithm3.
Eddy-current effects (phase-encoding distortion) were corrected using image
registration6.
For patient
scans, one ROI was defined on the uncorrected DTI slice estimated to contain
the largest tumor area. These ROIs were then mapped to the corresponding slice
on the corrected ADC and FA maps; minor adjustments were made if needed. DTI
ROIs were also mapped to the corresponding slice on DCE-MRI, and the alignment
between the ROI and enhancing voxels was assessed using the Dice correlation
and the number. Differences between uncorrected and corrected ADC and FA were
evaluated using a paired t-test, P<0.05 considered significant. The
alignment between uncorrected and corrected (DTI) tumor ROIs and tumor ROIs
defined on enhancing regions of DCE-MRI by calculating the both the Dice coefficient
and the change in the fraction of DCE-MRI tumor voxels encompassed by the DTI tumor ROIs. Results
Figure 1. shows the effects of GNC only and
GNC+RPG+ EC corrections on mean tumor ADC and FA measurements from the patients
at the pre- and early-treatment time points. GNC correction reduced tumor ADC
with a significant difference (p<0.001) between pre- and post correction
values for both T0 and T1, Addition of RPG and EC corrections to GN correction
did not significantly alter tumor ADC, but did significantly decreased FA at T0
(p=0.02). This difference was not significant at T1 (p=0.06). Addition of RPG
and EC corrections also improved the alignment of DTI and DCE-tumor ROIs as
demonstrated by the increase in Dice coefficient and percent of common voxels
between DTI and DCE-MRI tumor ROIs shown in Figure 2. Representative examples
of the effects of image distortion correction on the concordance between DTI
and DCE-MRI tumor ROIs in different patients are shown in Figure 3.Discussion
Previous work has shown that gradient
non-linearity can result in variation of tumor ADC and FA values, and that
these variations can be corrected. The changes in tumor FA and ADC after GNC
correction measured in this work were consistent with previous findings 4,5. The results of this work show that RPG and EC
correction, when applied in addition to GNC have significant effect on tumor FA
that paralleled to results previously reported in a phantom with known FA value
and can also improve DTI tumor registration with DCE-MRI tumor ROIs. Conclusion
Addition of RPG and EC distortion correction
demonstrated measurable changes in ADC and FA values compared to uncorrected
values at both T0 and T1. Work is ongoing to evaluate these effects in a larger
patient cohortAcknowledgements
The authors
acknowledge useful discussion with Ileana Hancu and Jonahtan Sperl, National
Institutes of Health Grant U01CA151235 R01Ca190299 and Susan G Komen Grant SAC110017.References
1.
Pickles
MD, Magn Reson Imaging, 2006 Sep;24(7):843-7.
2.
Newitt
DC et al, JMRI 2015; 42(4)908-19.
3.
Holland
D et al, Neuroimage 2010;50(1):175-183.
4.
Teruel
J et al, Magn Reson Med 2015 74:1138–1144.
5.
Wilmes
LJ, et al, International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2017, 4936.
6. Tan ET et al, JMRI 2013;38(2)448-53.