Siri Fløgstad Svensson1,2, Oliver Geier1, Elies Fuster-Garcia1,3, Gunnhild Ager-Wick1, Robin Anthony Birkeland Bugge1, Anne-Hilde Farstad4, Karoline Skogen5, and Kyrre Eeg Emblem1
1Department for Physics and Computational Radiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway, 2Department for Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 3Universitat Politècnica de València, BDSLab, Instituto Universitario de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicaciones, València, Spain, 4Department for Radiography, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway, 5Department for Radiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
Synopsis
Keywords: Elastography, Elastography
A previous study in the liver suggested that DWI can be
used for virtual elastography. Here, we investigate the potential correlations
between DWI-derived parameters and MR elastography (MRE) stiffness measurements
in sixteen patients with brain cancer. The highest cross-correlation was
obtained between stiffness and the shifted ADC map with b-values 1000 and 3000 s/mm² (median cross correlation
0.91). However, no correlation
between mean values of MRE and sADC
1000,3000 was found in normal-appearing
white and gray matter, nor in tumor regions. This could be due to a too simple diffusion
model and the anisotropic tissue structure of the brain.
Background:
MR
Elastography (MRE) is used to quantify tissue stiffness, but requires special
hardware and software. In
the liver, a study by Bihan et al. suggested that diffusion-weighted
imaging (DWI) can provide measures correlated to the shear stiffness1. In their study, a shifted apparent diffusion
coefficient (sADC) calculated using the b-values 200 and 1500 s/mm² showed a significant negative, linear correlation
with shear stiffness. The authors concluded that DWI could provide a virtual
elastography. Here, we investigate any correlation between potential DWI-derived
parameters of stiffness and MRE measurements in patients with brain cancer.Methods:
Sixteen patients were included, (9 with newly diagnosed glioblastoma
(nGBM), after tumor resection, 7 with recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM)). The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee. The exams were performed on
a 3T GE Signa Premier MRI scanner.
MRE was performed
using a mechanical transducer vibrating at 50 Hz2. We used a
multi-slice gradient-echo acquisition3 with 13
slices, 3 mm isotropic resolution, TE/TRslice=12/205 ms, and a 64 ×
64 matrix size. We used motion-encoding 53 mT/m gradients of in three
orthogonal directions, plus a reference scan without motion encoding. The MRE was
reconstructed using a curl-based method4. The MRE
reconstruction produces maps of stiffness |G*|, elasticity G’ and viscosity G’’.
For the diffusion weighted sequence, a multishell acquisition was used,
with the following b-values: 0 (4 directions), 500 (6 directions), 1000 (15
directions), 2000 (15 directions) and 3000 s/mm²
(60 directions). The resolution was 2 mm isotropically with 69 slices, a
120x120 matrix and TE/TR=0.077/3300 ms. Preprocessing of DWI data included
denoising, Gibbs compensation, eddy current, B0 distortion, and motion correction. sADC
maps with the following combinations of b-values were calculated (all in s/mm²): 0 and 500; 0, 500 and 1000, 0 and 1000; 500
and 1000; 500 and 2000; 1000 and 2000; 1000 and 3000; 2000 and 3000 (Table 1).
In addition to DWI and MRE, the scan protocol
included pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted scans, a T2-weighted scan and
FLAIR-T2 MRI. . Using
Oncohabitats5, we obtained
tissue segmentations of contrast-enhancing tumor, normal-appearing gray and
white matter, and cerebrospinal fluid, which were controlled by a radiologist.
Because MRE measurements are invalid in the fluid-filled ventricles, voxels
containing mainly cerebrospinal fluid were removed from both MRE maps and diffusion
maps before testing for similarities. To compare image similarities on a voxel
level, diffusion maps were transformed to MRE space using ANTSapplytransform
with nearest-neighbor interpolation. Similarities between MRE maps and
diffusion maps in each patient were calculated using ANTs
MeasureImageSimilarity, using the cross-correlation metric.
Mean values of the MRE and DWI map with the highest correlation were
then calculated in the following regions:
normal-appearing gray and white matter, contrast-enhancing tumor for
rGBM, and a peritumoral region between 5 mm and 10 mm away from the resection
cavity for nGBM.Results:
For all patients and all sADC maps, the highest
cross-correlation with
MRE measures was found with the stiffness |G*|, which will be reported on
subsequently. The highest cross-correlation was obtained between |G*| and the sADC
map with b-values 1000 s/mm² and 3000 s/mm² (sADC1000,3000) with a median cross correlation of 0.909 (range 0.877-0.959) (Table 1 and Figure 1). sADC1000,3000
had higher cross-correlation to stiffness than the clinical ADC (p<0.01).
Figure 2 shows mean values of stiffness and sADC1000,3000 in
normal-appearing gray and white matter, and tumor and peritumor for rGBM and
nGBM, respectively. A linear regression between stiffness and sADC1000,3000
explain little of the variation in the data (Figure 2). The R2 of
linear fits ranged from 0.001 in
gray matter to 0.426 in peritumor for nGBM. Using a Spearman rank correlation
test, no correlation between mean values of MRE and sADC1000,3000 was
found in any of the regions.Discussion:
Considering voxel-by-voxel, we found
a high cross-correlation between stiffness and shifted ADC maps.
As sADC1000,3000 decreases
with higher cellularity, we expect any correlation between stiffness and sADC1000,3000
to be negative, as Bihan et al. reported in the liver. However, no
significant correlations between mean values in pathologic and normal-appearing
regions were observed. Any trend in the plots is toward a positive rather than
a negative correlation.
There are several differences
between our study and the previously reported study in the liver1. In our study, we did not use the
exact same b-values as Bihan et al. We found the best cross-correlation
with stiffness at b=1000, and b=3000. The high correlation found in the liver
study (R2=0.89) may be attributed to the larger differences in liver
stiffness between patients compared to the relatively subtle differences in
brain tissue stiffness.
The MRE reconstruction technique
assumes tissue isotropy in both studies. Compared to liver tissue, this
assumption is more violated in the brain, because of the white matter tracts. The
anisotropy of the brain might contribute to the lack of correlation between
stiffness and sADC1000,3000.
A relationship between tissue
stiffness and water diffusion is expected, but a simple mono-exponential model
of diffusion using only two b-values is unable to capture any correlation in
the patients with brain cancer. Conclusion:
Although DWI-derived
sADC1000,3000 images show a high correlation with stiffness, DWI cannot replace MRE in
the brain.Acknowledgements
We
gratefully acknowledge support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme: ERC
Grant [758657-ImPRESS], Marie
Skłodowska-Curie grant [844646-GLIOHAB]; South-Eastern Norway Regional Health
Authority [2017073, 2013069, 2021057]; The Research Council of Norway Grant [261984,
325971]; and the Spanish State Research
Agency, Subprogram for Knowledge Generation [PROGRESS, No PID2021-127110OA-I00].References
1. Le
Bihan D, Ichikawa S, Motosugi U. Diffusion and Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MR
Imaging-based Virtual Elastography: A Hypothesis-generating Study in the Liver.
Radiology. 2017; 285(2):609-619.
2. Runge
JH, Hoelzl SH, Sudakova J, et al. A novel magnetic resonance elastography
transducer concept based on a rotational eccentric mass: preliminary
experiences with the gravitational transducer. Phys. Med. Biol. 2019; 64(4):045007.
3. Guenthner
C, Sethi S, Troelstra M, Dokumaci AS, Sinkus R, Kozerke S. Ristretto MRE: A
generalized multi-shot GRE-MRE sequence. NMR
Biomed. 2019;
32(5):e4049.
4. Sinkus R, Tanter M, Xydeas T, Catheline S, Bercoff J, Fink M.
Viscoelastic shear properties of in vivo breast lesions measured by MR
elastography. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2005;
23(2):159-165.
5. Juan-Albarracin J, Fuster-Garcia E, Manjon JV, et al.
Automated glioblastoma segmentation based on a multiparametric structured
unsupervised classification. PLoS One. 2015;
10(5):e0125143.