Monchai Phonlakrai1, Behzad Asadi2, Neda Gholizadeh3, Kate Skehan2, Liam Hilleary2, Jameen Arms4, Saadallah Ramadan5,6, John Simpson2,3, Jonathan Goodwin2,3, Jarad Martin2,7, Yuvnik Trada2, Swetha Sridharan2,7, and Peter Greer2,3
1School of Health Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, 2Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Newcastle, Australia, 3School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, 4Diagnostic Radiology, Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Newcastle, Australia, 5Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, 6HMRI Imaging Centre, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, Australia, 7School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
Synopsis
Dynamic gadoxetate contrast-enhanced MRI
yields spatial hepatocellular function through hepatic extraction fraction map. This allows well-functioning hepatocyte
sparing in radiotherapy to avoid radiation-induced liver toxicity. However, the
major challenge of using this parametric map in a clinical practice for normal
function sparing is the lack of standard method to determine liver function at
a voxel level within the same patient. As such, population-based kernel density
function was proposed to deal with this problem to predict voxel-based probability
of liver function. This novel approach also allows derivation of functional probability
map that could be used for radiation beam guidance in function-based radiation
treatment planning.
Introduction
Hepatic
extraction function (HEF) map, derived from gadoxetate dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, allows focal liver function assessment and quantification [1]. However, use of HEF is still limited in a routine
clinical setting, particularly, function-based radiation treatment planning. This is due
to lack of a standard method that can identify high and poor functioning voxels in the
same patient for clinical sparing. Therefore, this study proposes a novel approach for predicting voxel-wise liver function in HEF map using a population-based
probability density function. This will ultimately facilitate function-based
radiation treatment planning. Methods
Subjects
We collected sixty-four
clinical gadoxetate DCE-MRI, consisting of 25 normal liver function patients
and 39 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with underlying cirrhotic liver
from Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Australia. Normal liver function patients
were identified from biochemical blood tests, history of non-chronic liver
disease, and negative MRI study. The study was approved by the local and regional
regulatory ethics committee (reference number 2019/ETH13629).
Hepatic extraction fraction (HEF) map
generation
A voxel-wise HEF
map was derived from clinical datasets of six-phase gadoxetate DCE-MRI,
performed with 3T MRI. The method is based on truncated singular value decomposition as a
deconvolution analysis technique, described in [2] and [3] with minor modifications. First, we applied least-square curve fitting to smooth original time-intensity curves of portal vein and liver using a shape-preserving piecewise cubic Hermite interpolating polynomial
(pchip) method. The fitted values of the curves with 15 data-point intervals
over the length of imaging time were extracted and used to compute HEF values in the
model. Second, the hepatic retention phase was shortened to 15 min after injection to
match the clinical dataset, usually lasted 15-20 min after injection.
Population-based probability density
estimations
We used 62 out of 64 patients to generate the probability density function (PDF) of HEF values,
and the remaining 2, consisting of one normal and one HCC patient, for the prediction. The PDF of HEF values in normal and HCC patients with
cirrhotic liver were generated, separately. This was performed using the kernel smoothing function of Matlab according to the following equation
$$p(x)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^nK_w (x- x_i ), $$
where $$$p(x)$$$ is the probability density function, $$$x_i, i=1,2,...,n,$$$ are samples
from an unknown distribution, $$$n$$$ is
the sample size, $$$K(·)$$$ is the kernel smoothing function, and $$$w$$$ is the bandwidth.
Voxel-wise liver function prediction using
population-based probability density function
The HEF maps from one normal liver function patient and one HCC patient were used for predicting the probability of liver function at the voxel level using
following equation.
$$ρ(hef_{i,j}) = \frac{p(hef_{i,j})}{p(hef_{i,j})+p'(hef_{i,j})},$$
where $$$hef_{i,j}$$$ is the HEF value at pixel $$$(i,j)$$$, $$$p(hef_{i,j})$$$ is the PDF of HEF value for the normal-liver-function population, $$$ p'(hef_{i,j})$$$ is the PDF of HEF value for HCC population and $$$ρ(hef_{i,j})$$$ is the predicted
probability of liver function for a given HEF value.
Data
analysis
We calculated the mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation (CV) for both the HEF values and the predicted liver function probabilities in a normal liver
function patient and a HCC patient with underlying cirrhotic liver. The CV was considered as excellent for less than or equal to 10%,
good for between 10–20%, acceptable for between 20–30%, and
poor for greater than 30%.
Results
This study demonstrates the successful predicting of hepatocellular function at the voxel level using the population PDF of HEF map. The PDFs are illustrated in Figure 1. The results of voxel-wise liver function prediction are shown in Figure 2 where the probability maps of a normal liver function patient and a HCC patient are provided as a comparison. In the normal liver function patient and the HCC-patient with underlying cirrhotic liver, the mean HEF values were 0.27± 0.05 and 0.14± 0.07, the
mean predicted probability values were 0.80±0.17 and 0.33±0.27, and the CV of functional probability across voxels in probability
maps were 21.05 % and 83.89
%, respectively. discussion
In this study, we
have proposed a flexible method to predict liver function at a voxel level
without labeling or training the data. The homogenous probability values of normal liver
function patient was illustrated as expected (CV < 30%) as we hypothesized
that hepatocyte function should be homogenous in a normal liver function patient.
In contrast, the heterogeneity of probability values in HCC patient with underlying liver cirrhosis was observed (CV > 30%) in comparison with the normal liver function patient.
This is probably caused by the destruction of normal architecture and the loss
of hepatocytes in cirrhotic patients [4].
Conclusion
This study explored the usage of population-based PDF of HEF values for voxel-wise hepatocellular
function prediction. The results also show the potentials in the clinical use of this method for well-functioning hepatocyte sparing in function-based
radiation treatment planning.Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to the
following individuals for their expertise and assistance: Jose Baozi
Ortega (Medical Physic research group,
School of Mathematics and Physical Science, The University of Newcastle,
Australia). Monchai Phonlakrai gratefully acknowledges the funding received
towards his Ph.D. from the Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Thailand.References
- Nilsson H,
Blomqvist L, Douglas L, Nordell A, Jonas E. Assessment of liver function in
primary biliary cirrhosis using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced liver MRI. HPB.
2010;12(8):567-76. doi:10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00223.x
- Ryeom H-K, Kim S-H, Kim J-Y, Kim
H-J, Lee J-M, Chang Y-M, et al. Quantitative evaluation of liver function with
MRI Using Gd-EOB-DTPA. Korean J Radiol. 2004;5(4):231-9. doi:10.3348/kjr.2004.5.4.231
- Nilsson H, Nordell A, Vargas R,
Douglas L, Jonas E, Blomqvist L. Assessment of hepatic extraction fraction and
input relative blood flow using dynamic hepatocyte‐specific
contrast‐enhanced MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An
Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
2009;29(6):1323-31. doi:/10.1002/jmri.21801
- Ferrell
L. Liver Pathology: Cirrhosis, Hepatitis, and Primary Liver Tumors. Update and
Diagnostic Problems. Modern Pathology. 2000;13(6):679-704.
doi:10.1038/modpathol.3880119