Yong Chen1, Rasim Boyacioglu1, Gamage Sugandima Nishadi Weragoda2, Michael Martens2, Mark Griswold1, and Chaitra Badve1,3
1Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States, 2Physics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States, 3Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States
Synopsis
In this pilot study,
we aim to analyze MR Fingerprinting (MRF) signal using deep learning network to
assess the performance of tissue classification in gliomas. A U-Net based
convolutional neural network was trained to learn glioma grades based on the
SVD-compressed fingerprint acquired using MRF. Based on data acquired from a
5-minute MRF scan, the method shows great potential to accurately classify glioma
grades without the need of image registration and contrast administration.
Introduction
Gliomas are the most common primary brain
tumors and are classified as Grade I-IV based on the World Health Organization
(WHO) grade criteria. Accurate classification of glioma grade is essential for
complete diagnosis, prognostication and treatment planning. Assessment of
clinical images can provide clues on glioma grade, however final diagnosis is
always based on tissue sampling. The advanced imaging analyses used for glioma
classification also utilize multiple qualitative clinical images including T1,
T2, FLAIR, and post-contrast T1-weighted images. While
promising, these methods have drawbacks such as need for multiple sequences, heavy
reliance on contrast enhanced images, susceptibility to patient motion, lack of
reproducibility, to name a few.
MR Fingerprinting is a quantitative
imaging tool which can provide multiple co-aligned quantitative tissue maps in
one scan (1). Our previous results have shown that MRF map based analyses can differentiate between
various glioma (2). However, these analyses methods do not fully utilize the enriched
tissue/lesion specific information that is embedded in the raw MRF signal,
which could potentially enable more accurate tissue classification (Fig 1). Extraction
and analysis of this MRF signal, however, poses challenges in terms of scale
and complexity of signal as well as complexity of the classification problem
and can be best tackled by implementing deep learning methods. Previously, we
have used deep learning methods for accelerating 2D and 3D MRF scans (3-4). In
this pilot study, our aim is to assess the tissue classification performance of
a U-net based model applied to MRF signal in a cohort of glioma patients.Methods
The study was performed on MRF
data acquired from 43 adult patients with brain tumors, including 28 subjects with
grade-4 gliomas (GBM), 5 subjects with grade-3 gliomas, and 10 subjects with
grade-2 gliomas under an IRB approved protocol. Final diagnosis was based on
the 2003 WHO classification. For each subject, 3D MRF acquisitions were
performed at initial presentation (pre-surgery) before contrast administration.
The image parameters included FOV, 30×30 cm; matrix size, 256×256; slice
thickness, 3 mm; time frame, 1440; scan time, 4.6 min. MRF was acquired as a
part of a routine presurgical clinical scan (5). All patients were scanned on
Skyra 3T with a 20-channel head coil. The brain tumor MRF maps were labeled by
a neuroradiologist based on the clinical images (Fig 2). Four tumor-related
classes were labeled, including high-grade gliomas (grade 3+4), low-grade
gliomas (grade 2), peritumor white matter (PWM), and necrosis (NEC). Partial
volume (PV) analysis was further performed on normal brain tissues and three
classes including white matter (WM), gray matter (GM) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)
were segmented (6). A total of seven classes were labeled for all the subjects.
Next, U-Net was applied to extract useful
information from MRF signal (3-4). To reduce the number of parameters in the
network, SVD compression (7) was applied to compress MRF data to 25 SVD
components and used as the input of the training (Fig 2). The neuroradiologist
generated labels and tissue segmentation labels from PV analysis were used as
the reference. A patch-based approach (32x32) was applied to further utilize
spatial correlation in the MRF data to enhance tissue characterization. The
training was conducted with 100 epochs. Ten-fold cross validation was performed
for all 43 subjects.Results
Figs
3&4 show representative results obtained from a GBM patient and a grade-2 glioma
patient with accurate tissue classification. When analyzed on a pixel-by-pixel
basis, the method demonstrates high accuracy in separating abnormal pixels from
normal pixels with a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 98%. The
sensitivity and specificity to differentiate low-grade vs high-grade gliomas across
all the subjects was 85% and 70%, respectively. The accuracy to predict
high-grade, low-grade gliomas, PWM, and NEC on a pixel basis was 48%, 60%, 48%,
and 60%, respectively. Fig 5 shows the results from another patient with GBM. The
network predicted presence of tumor well beyond the small area of enhancement.
The patient underwent 5-ALA guided resection which confirmed presence of
glioblastoma extending beyond enhancing margins. Note the larger post-surgical
cavity as compared to area of enhancement.Discussion and Conclusion
This study explores
the potential of MRF signal analysis using deep learning for direct brain tissue
classification. The results show accurate separation between normal and
abnormal brain tissues on a pixel-by-pixel basis and excellent performance for
glioma grading from a single 5-minute MRF acquisition without contrast. While
the performance, especially for the pixel-based segmentation, can be further
improved, the classification results also need to be interpreted in light of
lack of actual ground truth. The proposed approach presents a novel methodology
to extract tissue specific information directly from the MRF signal without any
dictionary-based constraints. Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Ma
D, et al. Nature, 2013; 187–192.
2. Badve
C, et al. ASNR, 2017; 492-499.
3. Fang
Z, et al. TMI, 2019; 2364-2374.
4. Chen
Y, et al. NeuroImage, 2020; 116329.
5. Ma
D, et al. MRM, 2015; 2190-2197.
6. Deshmane
A, et al. NRM in Biomed, 2019; 1-17.
7. McGivney
DF, et al. TMI, 2014; 2311-2322.