Joao Santos Periquito1, Kathleen Cantow2, Thomas Gladytz3, Bert Flemming2, Dirk Grosenick3, Erdmann Seeliger2, Thoralf Niendorf1, and Andreas Pohlmann1
1Max Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany, 2Institute for Vegetative Physiology, Charité – Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 3Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Berlin, Germany
Synopsis
The
measurement of tubular volume fraction changes in the kidney may be valuable as
a confounder of T2*-derived tissue oxygenation and as a potential
biomarker. Diffusion weighted imaging provides information about in-vivo water mobility which can be linked
to three sources: tissue water diffusion, blood perfusion within intrarenal
microvasculature, and tubular fluid. In this work we explore the feasibility of
assessing tubular volume
fraction changes using the non-negative least squares (NNLS) approach under
different physiological conditions.
Introduction
Renal tissue hypoxia is considered to be an important
factor in the development of numerous acute and chronic kidney diseases. Blood
oxygenation sensitized MRI can provide quantitative information about changes
in renal blood oxygenation via mapping of T2*.
Simultaneous MRI and invasive physiological measurements in rat kidneys demonstrated
that changes in renal T2* do not accurately reflect renal
tissue oxygenation under pathophysiological conditions.1,2
Confounding factors that should be taken into account for the interpretation of
renal T2* include renal blood volume fraction and tubular
volume fraction.1,2 Tubuli represent a unique structural and
functional component of renal parenchyma, whose volume fraction may rapidly
change, e.g., due to alterations in filtration or tubular outflow.3,4
Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) provides a method for in-vivo evaluation of water mobility. In
the kidneys intravoxel incoherent water motion (IVIM)5 may be linked to three different
sources: i) renal tissue water diffusion, ii) blood perfusion within intrarenal
microvasculature and iii) fluid in the tubules.6,7 The latter
provides means to probe for changes in the tubular volume fraction. Recognizing
this opportunity this examines the feasibility of assessing tubular volume fraction changes using the
non-negative least squares (NNLS) analysis of DWI data obtained for different
physiological conditions.8,9
This approach does not require starting values or a
fixed model coefficients which is common practice in order to increase fit
stability and improve the sensitivity of common IVIM models.Methods
In-vivo experiments with three adult male Wistar rats were performed on a 9.4T small
animal-scanner (Bruker Biospec, Ettlingen, Germany). To temporarily increase
tubular volume fraction 30mmHg water pressure was applied to the urether: a saline-filled
container connected to the ureter via a catheter was elevated by 41 cm above
the level of the kidney (baseline level). T2 and ADC maps were used
to confirm the success of the challenge. We employed a diffusion-sensitized split-echo RARE method to
ensure renal-DWI free of geometric distortion using b-values of: 0, 4, 7, 10,
15, 20, 30, 38, 46, 65, 100, 175, 260, 400, 525 and 700 s/mm2. To
account for the non-isotropic diffusion, images of three orthogonal diffusion
directions were averaged. Images were de-noised with a spatially-adaptive-non-local-means filter.
ROIs were defined in
the cortex (COR), outer medulla (OM) and inner medulla (IM) using
semi-automated kidney segmentation10. The NNLS method8 was implemented by adapting an open-source
toolbox9 and used to analyze the measured signal decay of each ROI. The
NNLS analysis yields a spectrum of detected exponential components, where each
peak represents a (pseudo)diffusion compartment whose volume fractions are
given by the area-under-the-curve.Results
Images of a rat kidney acquired with different
diffusion weightings are shown in Fig.1.
The ADC and T2 maps confirmed the success of the reversible tubular
pressure increase by showing a clear change during the challenge (Fig.2).NNLS revealed three components
for all renal layers, at baseline as well as during increased pressure (Fig.3). At baseline these consisted of
a slow component fslow= 0.56±0.10 (COR), 0.54±0.07 (OM) and
0.39±0.10 (IM), intermediate component fintermediate= 0.34±0.11
(COR), 0.36±0.06 (OM) and 0.42±0.06 (IM) and fast component ffast=
0.09±0.02 (COR), 0.10±0.02 (OM) and 0.12±0.01 (IM) (Fig.4).
During increased pressure alterations in the fractions
were observed in all renal layers. While the fslow (%) decreased
15.7±20.1 (COR) 5.2±3.0 (OM) and 7.9±22.1 (IM) and ffast= 4.1±23.3
(COR), 21.1±29.9 (OM) and 30.8±27.9 (IM) mostly decreased, fintermediate=
42.4±44.6 (COR), 11.1±0.78 (OM) and 13.2±12.1 (IM) increased (Fig.5).Discussion and Conclusion
This work demonstrates the feasibility of monitoring
changes in the renal tubular volume fraction with DWI in conjunction with a NNLS
analysis. These unbiased model-free results confirm the existence of the three exponential
components in renal DWI data. The obtained fractions and their changes during increased
pressure support the interpretations of slow, intermediate, and fast components
as representing tissue diffusion, water movement in tubuli, and blood perfusion
respectively6,7. Observed alterations during the challenge may be
explained by expected changes in physiological parameters. Increased tubular pressure
leads to more water in the kidney which is confirmed by the alterations in T2
and the increases in fintermediate.
Probing vascular and tubular volume fractions in the
kidney is important for detailing and interpreting the relations between changes
in renal hemodynamics, tissue-oxygenation, vascular and tubular volume fraction
under (patho)physiological conditions. This renal DWI technique requires
further validation, but our novel approach is a promising refinement of the
common IVIM analysis for the MRI assessment of renal tubular volume fraction.Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the Bundesministerium
für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, German Federal Ministry for Education and
Research; grants VIP+ 03P00081, VIP+ 03P00082, VIP+ 03P00083).References
[1]
Pohlmann et al., Acta Physiologica (2013) 8(2):673-689; [2] Pohlmann et al., Invest.
Radiol. (2014) 49(8):547-60; [3] Niendorf et al. Acta Physiologica (2014)
213(1):19-38; [4] Knepper et al. (1977) 12(5) 313-323; [5] Le Bihan et al.
Radiology (1988) 168(2):497-505; [6] van Baalen et al., Magn Reson Med. (2017)
46(1):228-239; [7] van der Bel et al., European Journal of Radiology (2017)
91(3) 168-174; [8] Lawson et al., 1974; [9] Bjarnason et al., Journal of
Magnetic Resonance 206(2):200-204; [10] Pohlmann et al., Tomography (2017)
3(4):188-200;