Paul J.C. Hughes1, Laurie Smith1,2, Felix Horn1, Alberto M. Biancardi1, Neil Stewart1, Graham Norquay1, Madhwesha Rao1, Ina Aldag2, Chris Taylor2, Helen Marshall1, Guilhem Collier1, and Jim M. Wild1
1POLARIS, Academic Unit of Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 2Sheffield Children’s Hospital,Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust; and Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom
Synopsis
Development of sensitive
imaging biomarkers to differentiate health from
disease is an important research topic in pulmonary MRI. This work aimed to
make use of the rich spatial and signal intensity information in hyperpolarized
gas MR ventilation images to determine metrics of ventilation heterogeneity.
Retrospective analysis was performed on 3He ventilation images
acquired from healthy volunteers and patients with cystic fibrosis, asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Introduction
Sensitive methods for early detection of obstructive
lung disease is key for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), asthma and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as it enables early initiation of
treatments to maintain lung health. Ventilation defect percentage (VDP) has
become a widely adopted metric to assess lung disease using hyperpolarized (HP)
gas and proton anatomical (1H) MRI1.
However VDP is a global, binary metric reflecting the amount of unventilated
lung. VDP does not make full use of the rich spatial and signal intensity
information available within the ventilated lung. The coefficient of variation
of signal intensity (CV) can be calculated from HP gas images as a measure of
ventilation heterogeneity within the ventilated lung2. Average
CV of the lungs has been shown to be lower in healthy adults than in adults
with asthma2,
and healthy children and children with mild CF3.
We postulate that CV histogram analysis may provide additional instructive
metrics of ventilation heterogeneity.Purpose
To apply standard histogram analysis methods to CV
histograms derived from ventilation MRI, and assess whether histogram metrics
can differentiate healthy control subjects from patients with CF, asthma and
COPD.Methods
In this retrospective study, MRI data from 9 healthy children
and 19 patients with mild CF (clinically stable, mild CTFR mutations and an FEV1 z-score >-2) was used. Additionally,
data from 11 healthy adults, 34 patients with moderate-to-severe asthma (16
with FEV1 z-score >-2 – referred to as normal –
and 18 with FEV1 z-score <-2 – referred to as abnormal)
and 10 patients with COPD were analysed. Healthy children, and patients with
asthma and CF, performed same-breath 2D hyperpolarized 3He MRI and 1H MRI at 1.5T4 (GE
HDx, Milwaukee, WI) whilst healthy adults and patients with COPD underwent 3D
same-breath hyperpolarized 3He MRI
and 1H MRI at 1.5T5. Images
were segmented, and VDP1 and
median CV2,3 were calculated as the gold-standard
methods of analysis against which histogram metrics were compared. CV histogram
analysis was carried out using MATLAB following the workflow in Figure 1. For
the analysis of CV, to account for partial volume effects at the edge of the
lung, the 1H image mask was eroded by one voxel and the HP
gas ventilation image mask was then multiplied by this eroded 1H mask. CV maps were created by sliding a 3x3
kernel across the ventilation images, thus calculating the CV of each pixel by
considering the pixel itself and its 8 nearest neighbours. For each subject
data set, a CV histogram was generated by defining 100 bins equally spaced
between 0 and 100. CV histograms were then analysed for (i) skewness, (ii)
kurtosis and (iii) interquartile range (IQR). Mann-Whitney tests were used to
compare healthy children to children with CF whilst Kruskal-Wallis tests were
used to compare healthy adults to patients with asthma and COPD. Adult and
paediatric cohorts were separated as it is not yet clear how age affects the
heterogeneity within the lung.Results
VDP was significantly
different for healthy children vs. children with cystic fibrosis, healthy
adults vs. patients with asthma and abnormal FEV1 z-score, and
healthy adults vs. patients with COPD. VDP was not significantly different for
healthy adults vs. patients with asthma and normal FEV1 z-score (Figure
2a). Median CV (%) (Figure 2b), CVH skewness (Figure 3a) and CVH kurtosis
(Figure 3b) were significantly different between all pairs of groups. CVH IQR
was significantly different between all pairs of groups except between healthy
adults vs. patients with asthma and normal FEV1 z-score (Figure 3c).
The differentiation between healthy adults vs. patients with asthma and normal
FEV1 z-score was more statistically significant for CVH skewness
(p=0.0005) and kurtosis (p=0.0013) than for median CV (p=0.0223).Discussion and conclusions
CV histogram metrics were found
to differentiate health from several types of lung disease in young and old
patients. A particularly interesting case is the differentiation of healthy
adults and asthma patients with normal FEV1 z-score, for which the
established VDP metric showed no statistical difference. Whilst the median CV
showed statistical distinction between these groups, the CV histogram skewness
and kurtosis showed a greater statistical significance, indicating that these
ventilation heterogeneity metrics may be sensitive to early lung disease in
asthma. We have shown that CV histogram metrics provide measures of ventilation
heterogeneity that utilise the regional ventilation signal intensity
distribution information, unlike VDP. Longitudinal follow-up studies would
ascertain the sensitivity of these proposed metrics to short-term variation and
long-term disease progression. The developed automated histogram analysis
method can straightforwardly be used in conjunction with VDP analysis.Acknowledgements
NIHR, MRC, Cystic Fibrosis
Trust and GlaxoSmithKline for fundingReferences
1.
Woodhouse, N. et al. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 2005. 21(4): p.
365-369.
2.
Tzeng, Y.-S. et al. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2009. 106(3): p. 813-822.
3.
Marshall, H. et al. Thorax, 2017: p. thoraxjnl-2016-208948.
4.
Wild, J.M. et al. NMR in Biomedicine, 2011. 24(2): p. 130-134.
5.
Horn, F. et al. NMR in Biomedicine, 2014. DOI: doi: 10.1002/nbm.3187.
Epub 2014 Sep 10.