Comparison of fitting methods and b-value sampling strategies for intravoxel incoherent motion in breast cancer
Corresponding Author
Gene Young Cho
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Sackler Institute of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Correspondence to: Gene Young Cho, M.S., 660 First Avenue, 4th Floor, Room 420, New York, NY 10016. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorLinda Moy
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
New York University Langone Medical Center - Cancer Institute, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJeff L. Zhang
Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSteven Baete
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorRiccardo Lattanzi
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMelanie Moccaldi
New York University Langone Medical Center - Cancer Institute, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJames S. Babb
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSungheon Kim
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorDaniel K. Sodickson
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorEric E. Sigmund
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Gene Young Cho
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Sackler Institute of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Correspondence to: Gene Young Cho, M.S., 660 First Avenue, 4th Floor, Room 420, New York, NY 10016. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorLinda Moy
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
New York University Langone Medical Center - Cancer Institute, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJeff L. Zhang
Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSteven Baete
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorRiccardo Lattanzi
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMelanie Moccaldi
New York University Langone Medical Center - Cancer Institute, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJames S. Babb
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSungheon Kim
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorDaniel K. Sodickson
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorEric E. Sigmund
Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Purpose
To compare fitting methods and sampling strategies, including the implementation of an optimized b-value selection for improved estimation of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters in breast cancer.
Methods
Fourteen patients (age, 48.4 ± 14.27 years) with cancerous lesions underwent 3 Tesla breast MRI examination for a HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board approved diffusion MR study. IVIM biomarkers were calculated using “free” versus “segmented” fitting for conventional or optimized (repetitions of key b-values) b-value selection. Monte Carlo simulations were performed over a range of IVIM parameters to evaluate methods of analysis. Relative bias values, relative error, and coefficients of variation (CV) were obtained for assessment of methods. Statistical paired t-tests were used for comparison of experimental mean values and errors from each fitting and sampling method.
Results
Comparison of the different analysis/sampling methods in simulations and experiments showed that the “segmented” analysis and the optimized method have higher precision and accuracy, in general, compared with “free” fitting of conventional sampling when considering all parameters. Regarding relative bias, IVIM parameters fp and Dt differed significantly between “segmented” and “free” fitting methods.
Conclusion
IVIM analysis may improve using optimized selection and “segmented” analysis, potentially enabling better differentiation of breast cancer subtypes and monitoring of treatment. Magn Reson Med 74:1077–1085, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
REFERENCES
- 1 Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 2009; 11: 102–125.
- 2 Basser PJ. Inferring microstructural features and the physiological state of tissues from diffusion-weighted images. NMR Biomed 1995; 8: 333–344.
- 3 Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P, Sakamoto S, Hata H, Ozaki M, Kan S, Inoue Y. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: principles and clinical applications. Radiographics 2011; 31: 1059–1084.
- 4 Atuegwu NC, Arlinghaus LR, Li X, Welch EB, Chakravarthy BA, Gore JC, Yankeelov TE. Integration of diffusion-weighted MRI data and a simple mathematical model to predict breast tumor cellularity during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Magn Reson Med 2011; 66: 1689–1696.
- 5 Yoshikawa MI, Ohsumi S, Sugata S, Kataoka M, Takashima S, Mochizuki T, Ikura H, Imai Y. Relation between cancer cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient values using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. Radiat Med 2008; 26: 222–226.
- 6 Squillaci E, Manenti G, Cova M, Di Roma M, Miano R, Palmieri G, Simonetti G. Correlation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging with cellularity of renal tumours. Anticancer Res 2004; 24: 4175–4179.
- 7 Partridge SC, DeMartini WB, Kurland BF, Eby PR, White SW, Lehman CD. Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to conventional breast MRI for improved positive predictive value. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 1716–1722.
- 8 Sinha S, Lucas-Quesada FA, Sinha U, DeBruhl N, Bassett LW. In vivo diffusion-weighted MRI of the breast: potential for lesion characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 15: 693–704.
- 9 Fornasa F, Pinali L, Gasparini A, Toniolli E, Montemezzi S. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in focal breast lesions: analysis of 78 cases with pathological correlation. Radiol Med 2011; 116: 264–275.
- 10 Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Grenier P, Cabanis E, Laval-Jeantet M. MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology 1986; 161: 401–407.
- 11 Guiu B, Petit JM, Capitan V, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a 3.0-T MR study. Radiology 2012; 265: 96–103.
- 12 Cho GY, Kim S, Jensen JH, Storey P, Sodickson DK, Sigmund EE. A versatile flow phantom for intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. Magn Reson Med 2012; 67: 1710–1720.
- 13 Lemke A, Laun FB, Klauss M, Re TJ, Simon D, Delorme S, Schad LR, Stieltjes B. Differentiation of pancreas carcinoma from healthy pancreatic tissue using multiple b-values: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion derived parameters. Invest Radiol 2009; 44: 769–775.
- 14 Luciani A, Vignaud A, Cavet M, Nhieu JT, Mallat A, Ruel L, Laurent A, Deux JF, Brugieres P, Rahmouni A. Liver cirrhosis: intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging–pilot study. Radiology 2008; 249: 891–899.
- 15 Sigmund EE, Cho GY, Kim S, Finn M, Moccaldi M, Jensen JH, Sodickson DK, Goldberg JD, Formenti S, Moy L. Intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of tumor microenvironment in locally advanced breast cancer. Magn Reson Med 2011; 65: 1437–1447.
- 16 Bokacheva L, Kaplan JB, Giri DD, Patil S, Gnanasigamani M, Nyman CG, Deasy JO, Morris EA, Thakur SB. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI at 3.0 T differentiates malignant breast lesions from benign lesions and breast parenchyma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;:8 13–823.
- 17 Liu C, Liang C, Liu Z, Zhang S, Huang B. Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in evaluation of breast lesions: comparison with conventional DWI. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: e782–e789.
- 18 Dyvorne HA, Galea N, Nevers T, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver with multiple b values: effect of diffusion gradient polarity and breathing acquisition on image quality and intravoxel incoherent motion parameters–a pilot study. Radiology 2013; 266: 920–929.
- 19 Kim S, Decarlo L, Cho GY, Jensen JH, Sodickson DK, Moy L, Formenti S, Schneider RJ, Goldberg JD, Sigmund EE. Interstitial fluid pressure correlates with intravoxel incoherent motion imaging metrics in a mouse mammary carcinoma model. NMR Biomed 2012; 25: 787–794.
- 20 Chandarana H, Kang SK, Wong S, et al. Diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of renal tumors with histopathologic correlation. Invest Radiol 2012; 47: 688–696.
- 21 Rheinheimer S, Stieltjes B, Schneider F, Simon D, Pahernik S, Kauczor HU, Hallscheidt P. Investigation of renal lesions by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging applying intravoxel incoherent motion-derived parameters–initial experience. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: e310–e316.
- 22 Shinmoto H, Tamura C, Soga S, Shiomi E, Yoshihara N, Kaji T, Mulkern RV. An intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging study of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: W496–W500.
- 23 Klauss M, Gaida MM, Lemke A, Grunberg K, Simon D, Wente MN, Delorme S, Kauczor HU, Grenacher L, Stieltjes B. Fibrosis and pancreatic lesions: counterintuitive behavior of the diffusion imaging-derived structural diffusion coefficient d. Invest Radiol 2013; 48: 129–133.
- 24 Hauser T, Essig M, Jensen A, Gerigk L, Laun FB, Munter M, Simon D, Stieltjes B. Characterization and therapy monitoring of head and neck carcinomas using diffusion-imaging-based intravoxel incoherent motion parameters-preliminary results. Neuroradiology 2013; 55: 527–536.
- 25 Bauerle T, Seyler L, Munter M, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in rectal carcinoma patients without and after chemoradiotherapy: a comparative study with histology. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 444–452.
- 26 Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sano K, Morisaka H, Araki T. Intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of focal hepatic lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 1371–1376.
- 27 Quentin M, Blondin D, Klasen J, Lanzman RS, Miese FR, Arsov C, Albers P, Antoch G, Wittsack HJ. Comparison of different mathematical models of diffusion-weighted prostate MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30: 1468–1474.
- 28 Pang Y, Turkbey B, Bernardo M, Kruecker J, Kadoury S, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for prostate cancer: an evaluation of perfusion fraction and diffusion coefficient derived from different b-value combinations. Magn Reson Med 2013; 69: 553–562.
- 29 Choi SY, Chang YW, Park HJ, Kim HJ, Hong SS, Seo DY. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficiency values on diffusion-weighted imaging with prognostic factors for breast cancer. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e474–479.
- 30 Jeh SK, Kim SH, Kim HS, Kang BJ, Jeong SH, Yim HW, Song BJ. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging findings with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 102–109.
- 31 Kallehauge JF, Tanderup K, Haack S, Nielsen T, Muren LP, Fokdal L, Lindegaard JC, Pedersen EM. Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) as a quantitative parameter in diffusion weighted MR imaging in gynecologic cancer: dependence on b-values used. Acta Oncol 2010; 49: 1017–1022.
- 32 Wang H, Cheng L, Zhang X, Wang D, Guo A, Gao Y, Ye H. Renal cell carcinoma: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for subtype differentiation at 3.0 T. Radiology 2010; 257: 135–143.
- 33 Freiman M, Voss SD, Mulkern RV, Perez-Rossello JM, Callahan MJ, Warfield SK. In vivo assessment of optimal b-value range for perfusion-insensitive apparent diffusion coefficient imaging. Med Phys 2012; 39: 4832–4839.
- 34 Ogura A, Hayakawa K, Miyati T, Maeda F. Imaging parameter effects in apparent diffusion coefficient determination of magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77: 185–188.
- 35 Hall MG, Barrick TR. From diffusion-weighted MRI to anomalous diffusion imaging. Magn Reson Med 2008; 59: 447–455.
- 36 Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005; 53: 1432–1440.
- 37 Kristoffersen A. Estimating non-Gaussian diffusion model parameters in the presence of physiological noise and Rician signal bias. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35: 181–189.
- 38 Zhang JL, Sigmund EE, Rusinek H, Chandarana H, Storey P, Chen Q, Lee VS. Optimization of b-value sampling for diffusion-weighted imaging of the kidney. Magn Reson Med 2012; 67: 89–97.
- 39 Lemke A, Stieltjes B, Schad LR, Laun FB. Toward an optimal distribution of b values for intravoxel incoherent motion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 29: 766–776.
- 40 Neil JJ, Bretthorst GL. On the use of Bayesian probability theory for analysis of exponential decay data: an example taken from intravoxel incoherent motion experiments. Magn Reson Med 1993; 29: 642–647.
- 41 Orton MR, Collins DJ, Koh DM, Leach MO. Improved intravoxel incoherent motion analysis of diffusion weighted imaging by data driven Bayesian modeling. Magn Reson Med 2014; 71: 411–420.
- 42 Veraart J, Rajan J, Peeters RR, Leemans A, Sunaert S, Sijbers J. Comprehensive framework for accurate diffusion MRI parameter estimation. Magn Reson Med 2013; 70: 972–984.
- 43 Freiman M, Perez-Rossello JM, Callahan MJ, Voss SD, Ecklund K, Mulkern RV, Warfield SK. Reliable estimation of incoherent motion parametric maps from diffusion-weighted MRI using fusion bootstrap moves. Med Image Anal 2013; 17: 325–336.
- 44 Cohen AD, Schieke MC, Hohenwalter MD, Schmainda KM. The effect of low b-values on the intravoxel incoherent motion derived pseudodiffusion parameter in liver. Magn Reson Med 2015; 73: 306–311.
- 45 Penner AH, Sprinkart AM, Kukuk GM, Gutgemann I, Gieseke J, Schild HH, Willinek WA, Murtz P. Intravoxel incoherent motion model-based liver lesion characterisation from three b-value diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2773–2783.
- 46 Jambor I, Merisaari H, Aronen HJ, Jarvinen J, Saunavaara J, Kauko T, Borra R, Pesola M. Optimization of b-value distribution for biexponential diffusion-weighted MR imaging of normal prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39: 1213–1222.
- 47 Wirestam R, Borg M, Brockstedt S, Lindgren A, Holtas S, Stahlberg F. Perfusion-related parameters in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging compared with CBV and CBF measured by dynamic susceptibility-contrast MR technique. Acta Radiol 2001; 42: 123–128.
- 48 Moteki T, Horikoshi H. Evaluation of hepatic lesions and hepatic parenchyma using diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR with three values of gradient b-factor. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 24: 637–645.
- 49 Callot V, Bennett E, Decking UK, Balaban RS, Wen H. In vivo study of microcirculation in canine myocardium using the IVIM method. Magn Reson Med 2003; 50: 531–540.
- 50 Yao L, Sinha U. Imaging the microcirculatory proton fraction of muscle with diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging. Acad Radiol 2000; 7: 27–32.
- 51 Pekar J, Moonen CT, van Zijl PC. On the precision of diffusion/perfusion imaging by gradient sensitization. Magn Reson Med 1992; 23: 122–129.
- 52 Sumi M, Nakamura T. Head and neck tumors: assessment of perfusion-related parameters and diffusion coefficients based on the intravoxel incoherent motion model. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013; 34: 410–416.
- 53 Baltzer PA, Renz DM, Herrmann KH, Dietzel M, Krumbein I, Gajda M, Camara O, Reichenbach JR, Kaiser WA. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in MR mammography (MRM): clinical comparison of echo planar imaging (EPI) and half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE) diffusion techniques. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 1612–1620.
- 54 Kinoshita T, Yashiro N, Ihara N, Funatu H, Fukuma E, Narita M. Diffusion-weighted half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo imaging in breast tumors: differentiation of invasive ductal carcinoma from fibroadenoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002; 26: 1042–1046.
- 55 National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Determination of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) in diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging. Methods of measurement. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2008. p 17.
- 56 Press WH. Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
- 57 Chang LC, Walker L, Pierpaoli C. Informed RESTORE: a method for robust estimation of diffusion tensor from low redundancy datasets in the presence of physiological noise artifacts. Magn Reson Med 2012; 68: 1654–1663.
- 58 Buonaccorsi GA, Rose CJ, O'Connor JP, Roberts C, Watson Y, Jackson A, Jayson GC, Parker GJ. Cross-visit tumor sub-segmentation and registration with outlier rejection for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI time series data. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2010; 13(Pt 3): 121–128.
- 59 Manjon JV, Tohka J, Garcia-Marti G, Carbonell-Caballero J, Lull JJ, Marti-Bonmati L, Robles M. Robust MRI brain tissue parameter estimation by multistage outlier rejection. Magn Reson Med 2008; 59: 866–873.
