| Literature DB >> 27354956 |
Sonja Stieb1, Andreas Boss2, Moritz C Wurnig2, Pinar S Özbay3, Tobias Weiss4, Matthias Guckenberger5, Oliver Riesterer5, Cristina Rossi6.
Abstract
Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis of diffusion imaging data provides biomarkers of true passive water diffusion and perfusion properties. A new IVIM algorithm with variable adjustment of the b-value threshold separating diffusion and perfusion effects was applied for cerebral tissue characterization in healthy volunteers, computation of test-retest reliability, correlation with arterial spin labeling, and assessment of applicability in a small cohort of patients with malignant intracranial masses. The main results of this study are threefold: (i) accounting for regional differences in the separation of the perfusion and the diffusion components improves the reliability of the model parameters; (ii) if differences in the b-value threshold are not accounted for, a significant tissue-dependent systematic bias of the IVIM parameters occurs; (iii) accounting for voxel-wise differences in the b-value threshold improves the correlation with CBF measurements in healthy volunteers and patients. The proposed algorithm provides a robust characterization of regional micro-vascularization and cellularity without a priori assumptions on tissue diffusion properties. The glioblastoma multiforme with its inherently high variability of tumor vascularization and tumor cell density may benefit from a non-invasive clinical characterization of diffusion and perfusion properties.Entities:
Keywords: ASL; Arterial spin labeling; Glioblastoma multiforme; IVIM; Intravoxel incoherent motion; Test-retest reliability
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27354956 PMCID: PMC4910187 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.05.022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Summary of patients' data.
| Patient | Status | Gender | Age | Diagnosis | LC (month) | Therapy before MRI | Therapy after MRI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Deceased | M | 73 | GBM | No (5) | Biopsy | 6cTMZ, RT, 3 × Bevacizumab |
| 2 | Deceased | M | 32 | GBM | No (3) | Operation, RCT, 6cTMZ, bevacizumab | Bevacizumab bevacizumab + CCNU |
| 3 | Alive | M | 47 | AA | No (6) | Operation | RT, operation, 3cTMZ |
| 4 | Lost in | F | 55 | GBM | No (1) | Biopsy | RT |
| 5 | Deceased | F | 43 | AO | No (5) | Operation, RT, 6cTMZ, bevacizumab | Bevacizumab, RT |
| 6 | Alive | M | 52 | AA | No (3) | Biopsy, 2c TMZ | RT |
| 7 | Alive | F | 31 | AA | No (7) | Operation | RT |
| 8 | Alive | M | 26 | GBM | Yes (7) | Operation | RCT, 3cTMZ |
| 9 | Alive | M | 50 | Met | No (6) | Vandetabib | RT, sorafenib |
AA: anaplastic astrocytoma, AO: anaplastic oligodendroglioma, c: cycle, CCNU: lomustine, GBM: glioblastoma multiforme, LC: local control; RCT: radiochemotherapy, RT: radiotherapy, TMZ: temozolomide.
Status at the time point of the manuscript preparation.
Fig. 1Cropped M0 image and parametrical CBF and IVIM maps computed in one healthy volunteer (male, 39 years-old) using the variable threshold algorithm. The computed maps were overlaid onto the M0-image.
Mean values (± standard deviation) of the IVIM indexes computed in both trials (Trial 1: test, Trial 2: retest) using the variable-threshold algorithm and the fixed-threshold algorithm in gray matter, putamen alone, white matter, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in healthy volunteers.
| Gray matter | Putamen | White matter | CSF | Gray matter | Putamen | White matter | CSF | Gray matter | Putamen | White matter | CSF | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable-threshold algorithm | Trial 1 | 0.75 ± 0.03 | 0.63 ± 0.07 | 0.66 ± 0.03 | 0.84 ± 0.08 | 9.70 ± 1.60 | 18.1 ± 20.8 | 8.75 ± 0.99 | 11.11 ± 3.36 | 0.15 ± 0.02 | 0.08 ± 0.04 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.28 ± 0.06 |
| Trial 2 | 0.75 ± 0.04 | 0.61 ± 0.04 | 0.68 ± 0.03 | 0.88 ± 0.06 | 9.01 ± 1.16 | 24.8 ± 23.7 | 8.75 ± 1.30 | 11.64 ± 2.54 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.03 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.27 ± 0.07 | |
| Fixed-threshold algorithm | Trial 1 | 0.79 ± 0.07 | 0.66 ± 0.04 | 0.71 ± 0.03 | 1.01 ± 1.62 | 9.88 ± 1.54 | 47.4 ± 8.2 | 9.58 ± 1.68 | 10.07 ± 2.85 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.09 |
| Trial 2 | 0.71 ± 0.28 | 0.64 ± 0.03 | 0.71 ± 0.04 | 1.00 ± 0.15 | 10.01 ± 1.04 | 21.5 ± 34.6 | 9.99 ± 0.93 | 10.29 ± 2.27 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.07 | |
Fig. 2For each of the reported algorithms, Bland-Altman plots were generated to assess the agreement between the two measurements of the IVIM indexes. For each parameter, the subscript diff refers to the difference between the first and the second trial, while the subscript mean indicates the mean value of the two measurement points.
Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were computed to assess intra-algorithm reliability in each tissue type. Coefficients of variation (CVs) are reported as a measure of the distribution of the data points around the mean value for each trial and each algorithm.
| Variable threshold | Fixed threshold | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICC | CV trial 1 | CV trial 2 | ICC | CV trial 1 | CV trial 2 | ||
| GM | 0.74 | 0.18 | 1.01 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.49 | |
| 0.42 | 2.70 | 3.23 | 0.08 | 20.9 | 22.23 | ||
| 0.81 | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.42 | 4.76 | 5.04 | ||
| WM | 0.60 | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.82 | 0.16 | 0.18 | |
| 0.77 | 3.13 | 3.06 | 0.32 | 21.83 | 11.95 | ||
| 0.75 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.05 | 6.72 | 3.20 | ||
| CSF | 0.18 | 0.41 | 0.38 | 0.86 | 0.28 | 0.28 | |
| 0.95 | 1.79 | 1.81 | 0.91 | 17.28 | 17.25 | ||
| 0.95 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.88 | 4.01 | 1.95 | ||
Fig. 3Inter-algorithm comparison was performed by generating Bland-Altman plots for both trials. The subscript diff refers to the difference between the variable-threshold algorithm and the fixed-threshold one.
Spearman's correlation coefficients between CBF and IVIM indexes in healthy volunteers. Statistically significant correlation (p < 0.05) is highlighted in bold font.
| Gray matter | Putamen | White matter | CSF | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trial 1 | Trial 2 | Trial 1 | Trial 2 | Trial 1 | Trial 2 | Trial 1 | Trial 2 | ||
| Variable-threshold algorithm | CBF vs | 0.49 | 0.18 | 0.20 | − 0.02 | ||||
| CBF vs | 0.42 | 0.54 | − 0.51 | 0.15 | |||||
| CBF vs | − 0.18 | − 0.23 | − 0.48 | − 0.24 | − 0.53 | ||||
| Fixed-threshold algorithm | CBF vs | 0.27 | 0.17 | 0.55 | 0.02 | 0.36 | − 0.51 | − 0.37 | |
| CBF vs | 0.20 | 0.43 | − 0.57 | 0.19 | 0.57 | − 0.47 | − 0.19 | ||
| CBF vs | 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.52 | − 0.22 | − 0.08 | 0.11 | − 0.45 | ||
Mean values (± standard deviation) of the IVIM indexes computed using the variable-threshold algorithm and the fixed-threshold algorithm in patients.
| Variable-threshold | Fixed-threshold | Variable-threshold | Fixed-threshold | Variable-threshold | Fixed-threshold | |
| White matter | 0.64 ± 0.05 | 0.70 ± 0.04 | 6.4 ± 4.5 | 7.0 ± 2.0 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.08 ± 0.02 |
| Contrast-enhancing lesion | 0.88 ± 0.14 | 0.98 ± 0.18 | 11.6 ± 9.5 | 15.6 ± 9.8 | 0.20 ± 0.13 | 0.16 ± 0.10 |
| Edema | 1.06 ± 0.19 | 1.12 ± 2.10 | 19.1 ± 29.3 | 12.5 ± 13.1 | 0.12 ± 0.05 | 0.10 ± 0.05 |
| Necrotic region | 0.97 ± 0.24 | 1.03 ± 0.24 | 9.9 ± 5.3 | 6.2 ± 1.8 | 0.14 ± 0.05 | 0.11 ± 0.04 |
Fig. 4Curves fitting the signal decay for increasing b-values in a ring-enhancing and in a contrast-enhancing lesion using various b-values as threshold for separation of diffusion and perfusion components. The estimation of the IVIM-indexes depended from the choice of the b-value threshold.
Spearman's correlation coefficients between CBF and IVIM indexes in patients. Statistically significant correlation (p < 0.05) is highlighted in bold font.
| Contrast-Enhancing Lesion | Edema | Necrotic Region | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable-threshold algorithm | CBF vs | − 0.36 | − 0.46 | − 0.15 |
| CBF vs | − 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.20 | |
| CBF vs | ||||
| CBF vs | 0.46 | 0.66 | ||
| Fixed-threshold algorithm | CBF vs | − 0.46 | − 0.54 | − 0.35 |
| CBF vs | − 0.75 | − 0.18 | − 0.49 | |
| CBF vs | − 0.61 | − 0.77 | ||
| CBF vs | − 0.31 | − 0.04 | 0.14 | |
Fig. 5Cropped parametrical CBF and f maps computed in one patient (female, 55 years-old, diagnosis of GBM) are reported. Areas of hyper-perfusion at the border to a ring enhancing lesion (white arrow) correspond to low f values. The contrast-enhancing lesion visible in the T1-weighted image (black arrow) was characterized by heterogeneous perfusion and low mean f values.