IVIM–DKI for differentiation between prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison of 1.5 T vs. 3 T MRI
Tóm tắt
To implement an advanced spatial penalty-based reconstruction to constrain the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)–diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) model and investigate whether it provides a suitable alternative at 1.5 T to the traditional IVIM–DKI model at 3 T for clinical characterization of prostate cancer (PCa) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Thirty-two patients with biopsy-proven PCa were recruited for MRI examination (n = 16 scanned at 1.5 T, n = 16 scanned at 3 T). Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with 13 b values (b = 0 to 2000 s/mm2 up to 3 averages, 1.5 T: TR = 5.774 s, TE = 81 ms and 3 T: TR = 4.899 s, TE = 100 ms), T2-weighted, and T1-weighted imaging were used on the 1.5 T and 3 T MRI scanner, respectively. The IVIM–DKI signal was modeled using the traditional IVIM–DKI model and a novel model in which the total variation (TV) penalty function was combined with the traditional model to optimize non-physiological variations. Paired and unpaired t-tests were used to compare intra-scanner and scanner group differences in IVIM–DKI parameters obtained using the novel and the traditional models. Analysis of variance with post hoc test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used to assess the ability of parameters obtained using the novel model (at 1.5 T) and the traditional model (at 3 T) to characterize prostate lesions. IVIM–DKI modeled using novel model with TV spatial penalty function at 1.5 T, produced parameter maps with 50–78% lower coefficient of variation (CV) than traditional model at 3 T. Novel model estimated higher D with lower D*, f and k values at both field strengths compared to traditional model. For scanner differences, the novel model at 1.5 T estimated lower D* and f values as compared to traditional model at 3 T. At 1.5 T, D and f values were significantly lower with k values significantly higher in tumor than BPH and healthy tissue. D (AUC: 0.98), f (AUC: 0.82), and k (AUC: 0.91) parameters estimated using novel model showed high diagnostic performance in cancer lesion detection at 1.5 T. In comparison with the IVIM–DKI model at 3 T, IVIM–DKI signal modeled with the TV penalty function at 1.5 T showed lower estimation errors. The proposed novel model can be utilized for improved detection of prostate lesions.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Rebello RJ, Oing C, Knudsen KE, Loeb S, Johnson DC, Reiter RE, Gillessen S, Van der Kwast T, Bristow RG (2021) Prostate cancer. Nat Rev Dis Prim 7:1–27
Penzkofer T, Tempany-Afdhal CM (2014) Prostate cancer detection and diagnosis: the role of MR and its comparison with other diagnostic modalities—a radiologist’s perspective. NMR Biomed 27:3–15
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Emberton M (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822
Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, D’Amico AV, Davis BJ, Dorff T, Eastham JA, Enke CA, Farrington TA, Higano CS, Horwitz EM, Hurwitz M, Ippolito JE, Kane CJ, Kuettel MR, Lang JM, McKenney J, Netto G, Penson DF, Plimack ER, Pow-Sang JM, Pugh TJ, Richey S, Roach M, Rosenfeld S, Schaeffer E, Shabsigh A, Small EJ, Spratt DE, Srinivas S, Tward J, Shead DA, Freedman-Cass DA (2019) Prostate cancer, version 2.2019. JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 17:479–505
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351
Döpfert J, Lemke A, Weidner A, Schad LR (2011) Investigation of prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 29:1053–1058
Shinmoto H, Tamura C, Soga S, Shiomi E, Yoshihara N, Kaji T, Mulkern RV (2012) An intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging study of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 199:496–500
Wang F, Wang Y, Zhou Y, Liu C, Xie L, Zhou Z, Liang D, Shen Y, Yao Z, Liu J (2017) Comparison between types I and II epithelial ovarian cancer using histogram analysis of monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched-exponential diffusion models. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:1797–1809
Tamura C, Shinmoto H, Soga S, Okamura T, Sato H, Okuaki T, Pang Y, Kosuda S, Kaji T (2014) Diffusion kurtosis imaging study of prostate cancer: preliminary findings. J Magn Reson imaging 40:723–729
Jambor I, Merisaari H, Taimen P, Boström P, Minn H, Pesola M, Aronen HJ (2015) Evaluation of different mathematical models for diffusion-weighted imaging of normal prostate and prostate cancer using high b-values: a repeatability study. Magn Reson Med 73:1988–1998
Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 168:497–505
Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K (2005) Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 53:1432–1440
Lu Y, Jansen JFA, Mazaheri Y, Stambuk HE, Koutcher JA, Shukla-Dave A (2012) Extension of the intravoxel incoherent motion model to non-gaussian diffusion in head and neck cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1088–1096
Ianuş A, Santiago I, Galzerano A, Montesinos P, Loução N, Sanchez-Gonzalez J, Alexander DC, Matos C, Shemesh N (2020) Higher-order diffusion MRI characterization of mesorectal lymph nodes in rectal cancer. Magn Reson Med 84:348–364
Rudin LI, Osher S, Fatemi E (1992) Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms. Phys D Nonlinear Phenom 60:259–268
Kayal EB, Kandasamy D, Khare K, Alampally JT, Bakhshi S, Sharma R, Mehndiratta A (2017) Quantitative analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion MRI using total variation and Huber penalty function. Med Phys 44:5849–5858
Kayal EB, Kandasamy D, Khare K, Bakhshi S, Sharma R, Mehndiratta A (2019) Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) for response assessment in patients with osteosarcoma undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol 119:108635
Malagi AV, Das CJ, Khare K, Calamante F, Mehndiratta A (2019) Effect of combination and number of b values in IVIM analysis with post-processing methodology: simulation and clinical study. Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med 32:519–527
Malagi AV, Kandasamy D, Khare K, Pushpam D, Kumar R, Bakhshi S, Mehndiratta A (2020) IVIM and diffusion Kurtosis MR Imaging on interim response assessment of Hodgkin Lymphoma. Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med 28:4870
Marques JP, Simonis FFJ, Webb AG (2019) Low-field MRI: an MR physics perspective. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:1528–1542
Wurnig MC, Kenkel D, Filli L, Boss A (2016) A standardized parameter-free algorithm for combined intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis analysis of diffusion imaging data. Invest Radiol 51:203–210
Fujima N, Sakashita T, Homma A, Yoshida D, Kudo K, Shirato H (2018) Utility of a hybrid IVIM-DKI model to predict the development of distant metastasis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients. Magn Reson Med Sci 17:21–27
Fujima N, Yoshida D, Sakashita T, Homma A, Tsukahara A, Shimizu Y, Tha KK, Kudo K, Shirato H (2017) Prediction of the treatment outcome using intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusional kurtosis imaging in nasal or sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma patients. Eur Radiol 27:956–965
Suo S, Chen X, Wu L, Zhang X, Yao Q, Fan Y, Wang H, Xu J (2014) Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 32:421–427
Lemke A, Stieltjes B, Schad LR, Laun FB (2011) Toward an optimal distribution of b values for intravoxel incoherent motion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 29:766–776
Valerio M, Zini C, Fierro D, Giura F, Colarieti A, Giuliani A, Laghi A, Catalano C, Panebianco V (2016) 3T multiparametric MRI of the prostate: does intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion imaging have a role in the detection and stratification of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone? Eur J Radiol 85:790–794
Beyhan M, Sade R, Koc E, Adanur S, Kantarci M (2018) The evaluation of prostate lesions with IVIM DWI and MR perfusion parameters at 3T MRI. Radiol Med 124:1–7
Pesapane F, Patella F, Fumarola EM, Panella S, Ierardi AM, Pompili GG, Franceschelli G, Angileri SA, Magenta Biasina A, Carrafiello G (2017) Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in the periferic prostate cancer detection and stratification. Med Oncol 34:1–9
Ertas M, Yildirim I, Kamasak M, Akan A (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis image reconstruction using 2D and 3D total variation minimization. Biomed Eng Online 12:112
Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:375–385
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res 33:261–304
Rosenkrantz AB, Oei M, Babb JS, Niver BE, Taouli B (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3.0 Tesla: image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility compared with 1.5 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:128–135
Saremi F, Jalili M, Sefidbakht S, Channual S, Quane L, Naderi N, Schultze-Haakh H, Torrone M (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3 T: image quality comparison with 1.5-T magnet using 3 different imaging sequences. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:317–325
Beyersdorff D, Taymoorian K, Knösel T, Schnorr D, Felix R, Hamm B, Bruhn H (2005) MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. Am J Roentgenol 185:1214–1220
Ullrich T, Quentin M, Oelers C, Dietzel F, Sawicki LM, Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Albers P, Antoch G, Blondin D, Wittsack HJ, Schimmöller L (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0 T: a prospective comparison study of image quality. Eur J Radiol 90:192–197
Mazaheri Y, Vargas HA, Nyman G, Akin O, Hricak H (2013) Image artifacts on prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade-offs at 1.5 tesla and 3.0 tesla. Acad Radiol 20:1041–1047
Geethanath S, Vaughan JT (2019) Accessible magnetic resonance imaging: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:e65–e77
Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y, Matsui M, Ida M, Fujiwara S, Shibata E (2008) Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology 249:624–630
Lavdas I, Miquel ME, McRobbie DW, Aboagye EO (2014) Comparison between diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) at 1.5 and 3 tesla: a phantom study. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:682–690
Ding Y, Tan Q, Mao W, Dai C, Hu X, Hou J, Zeng M, Zhou J (2019) Differentiating between malignant and benign renal tumors: do IVIM and diffusion kurtosis imaging perform better than DWI? Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06240-6
Merisaari H, Movahedi P, Perez IM, Toivonen J, Pesola M, Taimen P, Boström PJ, Pahikkala T, Kiviniemi A, Aronen HJ (2017) Fitting methods for intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of prostate cancer on region of interest level: repeatability and gleason score prediction. Magn Reson Med 77:1249–1264
Cui Y, Li C, Liu Y, Jiang Y, Yu L, Liu M, Zhang W, Shi K, Zhang C, Zhang J (2019) Differentiation of prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparisons of the histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion and monoexponential model with in-bore MR-guided biopsy as pathological reference. Abdom Radiol 45:1–13