Gene Young Cho1,2, Linda Moy1,3, Jeff L Zhang4, Steven Baete1, Riccardo Lattanzi1, Melanie Moccaldi3, James S Babb1, Sungheon Kim1, Daniel K Sodickson1, Eric E Sigmund1. 1. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. Sackler Institute of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 3. New York University Langone Medical Center - Cancer Institute, New York, New York, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Ivan Jambor; Harri Merisaari; Hannu J Aronen; Jukka Järvinen; Jani Saunavaara; Tommi Kauko; Ronald Borra; Marko Pesola Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jelle Veraart; Jeny Rajan; Ronald R Peeters; Alexander Leemans; Stefan Sunaert; Jan Sijbers Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: A-H Penner; A M Sprinkart; G M Kukuk; I Gütgemann; J Gieseke; H H Schild; W A Willinek; P Mürtz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-05-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Louisa Bokacheva; Jennifer B Kaplan; Dilip D Giri; Sujata Patil; Merlin Gnanasigamani; C Gregory Nyman; Joseph O Deasy; Elizabeth A Morris; Sunitha B Thakur Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Vahid Taimouri; Onur Afacan; Jeannette M Perez-Rossello; Michael J Callahan; Robert V Mulkern; Simon K Warfield; Moti Freiman Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Oscar Jalnefjord; Mats Andersson; Mikael Montelius; Göran Starck; Anna-Karin Elf; Viktor Johanson; Johanna Svensson; Maria Ljungberg Journal: MAGMA Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Sungheon G Kim; Steven H Baete; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: E E Sigmund; S H Baete; T Luo; K Patel; D Wang; I Rossi; A Duarte; M Bruno; D Mossa; A Femia; S Ramachandran; D Stoffel; J S Babb; A G Franks; J Bencardino Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315