This work proposes the use of a two perfusion comparmtent model to fit diffusion MRI data of human placenta. The aim of the work is to characterize the parameters values and compare them with results obtained in animal models.
Methods
Model
modeling The following function has been fitted to the diffusion data:
$$S = S_0 [ f_f e^{-bD_f^*} + f_s e^{-bD_s^*} + (1-f_f-f_s) e^{-bADC} ]$$.
S0 is the non-weighted diffusion signal, D*f and D*s are the fast and slow pseudo-perfusion coefficients, ff and fs their fractions and ADC is the apparent diffusion coefficient. To not exceed with the degree of freedom of the model we fixed one of the perfusion-coefficient values (D*s).
Data
We used data from 12 pregnant women (Gestational weeks mean+/-std=22+/-2.3w) acquired on a 1.5T scanner (Siemens Avanto, Erlangen, Germany), included a Diffusion-weighted Spin-Echo Echo-Planar Imaging with repetition time/echo time, TR/TE=3900ms/74.8ms; bandwidth=1184Hz/px; matrix size=192x192, FOV 220x220, number of slices=from 18 to 30. The in-plane resolution was 2.0x2.0mm2 and the slice thickness 5mm. The diffusion encoding gradients were applied along 3 no-coplanar directions using seven different b-values (0,10, 30, 50,75,100,200,400,700,1000 s/mm2) and averaged over the three directions. The number of averaged signal (NS) for each b value was NS=4. A Matlab (MathWorks, 2015a) home-made script was used to fit the model to the data.
Analysis
To find the best value for D*s to be fixed, we selected one slice for each subject and repeated the fitting procedure voxel-wise for different values of D*s comprised between 3 and 27 µm2/ms. For all the subject we found that the value of D*s that minimize the objective function of the fit (sum of squared errors in our case) lain between 4 and 6 µm2/ms (figure 2). Three Regions of Interest (ROIs) were selected in each placenta (figure 3): One considering the placenta tissues near the fetus (baby), one central and one on the mother side (mother). We evaluated the fit’s outputs, averaging the signal in these ROIs, to avoid instabilities of the fit.
1 Regnault, T., Galan, H., Parker, T. & Anthony, R. Placental development in normal and compromised pregnancies—a review. Placenta 23, S119-S129 (2002).
2 Serov, A. S., Salafia, C., Grebenkov, D. S. & Filoche, M. The role of morphology in mathematical models of placental gas exchange. Journal of Applied Physiology 120, 17-28 (2016).
3 Moore, R. J. et al. In utero perfusing fraction maps in normal and growth restricted pregnancy measured using IVIM echo-planar MRI. Placenta 21, 726-732, doi:10.1053/plac.2000.0567 (2000).
4 Moore, R. et al. In vivo intravoxel incoherent motion measurements in the human placenta using echo‐planar imaging at 0.5 T. Magnetic resonance in medicine 43, 295-302 (2000).
5 Capuani, S. et al. Diffusion and perfusion quantified by Magnetic Resonance Imaging are markers of human placenta development in normal pregnancy. Placenta 58, 33-39 (2017).
6 Avni, R., Neeman, M. & Garbow, J. Functional MRI of the placenta–From rodents to humans. Placenta 36, 615-622 (2015).
7 Solomon, E. et al. Major mouse placental compartments revealed by diffusion-weighted MRI, contrast-enhanced MRI, and fluorescence imaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 10353-10358 (2014).