Download pdf

B1+ field correction of T1 estimation is necessary for
quantitative breast DCE MRI even at 1.5T
Poster No.:
B-0424
Congress:
ECR 2016
Type:
Scientific Paper
Authors:
W. Tsai, K. Kao, K. Chang, C. E. Lin; Taipei/TW
Keywords:
Breast, Molecular imaging, MR, Ultrasound, Technical aspects,
Cancer
Any information contained in this pdf file is automatically generated from digital material
submitted to EPOS by third parties in the form of scientific presentations. References
to any names, marks, products, or services of third parties or hypertext links to thirdparty sites or information are provided solely as a convenience to you and do not in
any way constitute or imply ECR's endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of the
third party, information, product or service. ECR is not responsible for the content of
these pages and does not make any representations regarding the content or accuracy
of material in this file.
As per copyright regulations, any unauthorised use of the material or parts thereof as
well as commercial reproduction or multiple distribution by any traditional or electronically
based reproduction/publication method ist strictly prohibited.
You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold ECR harmless from and against any and all
claims, damages, costs, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising from or related
to your use of these pages.
Please note: Links to movies, ppt slideshows and any other multimedia files are not
available in the pdf version of presentations.
www.myESR.org
Page 1 of 8
Purpose
To quantify the effect of T1 estimation in fat by B1 correction in breast MRI at 1.5T, and
to examine the subsequent quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) parameters
in breast cancer with and without B1 correction.
Methods and materials
+
B1 field and variable flip angle (VFA) mapping were included in our DCE breast MRI
protocol for a total of 72 breast cancer patients on a GE 450W MR system. We computed
pre-contrast T1 relaxation in fat and breast tumors with and without B1 correction. The
pharmacokinetic parameters of breast cancer were calculated using Tofts model with T1
value before and after B1 correction. The mean and median of B1, T1 values and DCE
parameters were used for statistical analysis.
Results
The flip angle (FA) in the left breast is 18.99% higher and 2.97% lower, in the right,
than the prescribed value. This 21.96% average FA difference created a 43.05% T1
estimation bias in fat between the breasts. The T1 variation in fat was reduced to 0.96%
after B1 correction. There is 50% overestimate and 7% underestimate of tumor T1 at
the left breast and the right, respectively, associated with B1 error. Assuming T1 after B1
correction represent the true tumor T1, 41% underestimation in the left breast and 10%
trans
overestimation in the right without B1 correction were seen in the DCE parameters(K
ve, IAUGCBN90).
Images for this section:
Page 2 of 8
,
Fig. 1: Figure 1. a. The relative flip angle variation in percentage in the left and right
breasts in 72 breast MRI patients . The dotted line is the group median value. b.
Comparison of flip angle variation in left and right breast in all 72 patients using a box
plot. The central mark on each box is the median, the edges of the box are the 25th (Q1)
and 75th (Q3) percentiles, the upper 'whisker' is the smaller of the maximum value and
Q3+1.5xIQR, and the lower whisker is the larger of the minimum value and Q1-1.5xIQR,
where IQR represents the interquartile range, i.e. Q3-Q1.
© Radiology, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center - Taipei/TW
Fig. 2: Figure 2. Comparison of T1 estimation in fat without (a)and with (b) correction of
B1 inhomogeneity in 72 breast MRI patients.
Page 3 of 8
© Radiology, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center - Taipei/TW
Fig. 3: Figure 3. Comparison of T10 estimation in breast cancer without (a)and with (b)
correction of B1 inhomogeneity in 72 breast MRI patients.
© Radiology, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center - Taipei/TW
Page 4 of 8
Fig. 4: Figure 4. Comparison of percentage of T1 estimation error induced percentage of
estimation error in the pharmacokinetic parameters (a) Ktrans, (b) kep, (c) ve, (d) vp, (e)
IAUGCBN90 in 72 patients. The red curves are equivalent to the model P(TT)/P(TB)=(TT/
TB)-1.3(p-value <2e-16).
© Radiology, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center - Taipei/TW
Table 1: Table1.Patients and tumor characteristics (n=72)
© Radiology, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center - Taipei/TW
Page 5 of 8
Conclusion
The B1 inhomogeneity induced T1 estimation error can cause significant pharmacokinetic
parameter bias in breast cancer at 1.5T DCE MRI. B1 correction for more accurate
T1 value should be considered for quantitative DCE breast MRI even at 1.5 Tesla to
correct the significant systemic error unless the B1 homogeneity is verified to be accurate
beforehand.
Personal information
1,2
WanChen Tsai MD
4
3
3
, Kuo-Jang Kao MD PhD , Kai-Ming Chang PhD , Chen-Fang Hung
5
6
7
MS , Qing Yang PhD , Chien-Yuan E Lin PhD , Chii-Ming Chen MD
1
2
Department of Radiology, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center; School of
3
4
Medicine, National Yang-Ming University; Department of Research, Department of
5
Clinical Research, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center; Apollo Medical Imaging
6
Technology Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Department of Research, GE Healthcare,
7
Taiwan; Department of Surgery, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center
Corresponding author:
Wan-Chen Tsai, MD
125 Lider Rd,
Pei-Tou district, Taipei 112
Taiwan
Department of Radiology, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center
Phone: +886-2-28970011 ext. 1117
Fax: +886-2-28971100
Page 6 of 8
E-mail: [email protected]
References
1. Padhani AR: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current
status and future directions. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI 2002,
16(4):407-422.
2. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, Larsson HB, Lee
TY, Mayr NA, Parker GJ et al: Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrastenhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and
symbols. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI 1999, 10(3):223-232.
3. Evelhoch JL: Key factors in the acquisition of contrast kinetic data for oncology.
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI 1999, 10(3):254-259.
4. Deoni SC, Rutt BK, Peters TM: Rapid combined T1 and T2 mapping using gradient
recalled acquisition in the steady state. Magn Reson Med 2003, 49(3):515-526.
5. Brookes JA, Redpath TW, Gilbert FJ, Murray AD, Staff RT: Accuracy of T1
measurement in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI using two- and threedimensional variable flip angle fast low-angle shot. Journal of magnetic resonance
imaging : JMRI 1999, 9(2):163-171.
6. Zhu XP, Li KL, Kamaly-Asl ID, Checkley DR, Tessier JJ, Waterton JC, Jackson A:
Quantification of endothelial permeability, leakage space, and blood volume in
brain tumors using combined T1 and T2* contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging.
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI 2000, 11(6):575-585.
7. Wang HZ, Riederer SJ, Lee JN: Optimizing the precision in T1 relaxation
estimation using limited flip angles. Magn Reson Med 1987, 5(5):399-416.
8. Sung K, Daniel BL, Hargreaves BA: Transmit B1+ field inhomogeneity and T1
estimation errors in breast DCE-MRI at 3 tesla. Journal of magnetic resonance
imaging : JMRI 2013, 38(2):454-459.
9. Azlan CA, Di Giovanni P, Ahearn TS, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Redpath TW:
B1 transmission-field inhomogeneity and enhancement ratio errors in dynamic
contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the breast at 3T. Journal of magnetic resonance
imaging : JMRI 2010, 31(1):234-239.
10. Treier R, Steingoetter A, Fried M, Schwizer W, Boesiger P: Optimized and combined
T1 and B1 mapping technique for fast and accurate T1 quantification in contrastenhanced abdominal MRI. Magn Reson Med 2007, 57(3):568-576.
Page 7 of 8
11. Di Giovanni P, Azlan CA, Ahearn TS, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Redpath TW: The
accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurement in DCE-MRI of the breast at
3 T. Phys Med Biol 2010, 55(1):121-132.
12. Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD: Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA
enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn Reson Med 1995,
33(4):564-568.
13. <!!!QIBA_DCE-MRI Profile_v1.6_20111213.pdf> [https://www.yumpu.com/en/
document/view/19229002/profile-dce-mri-quantification-version-16-qiba-wiki]
14. Sacolick LI, Wiesinger F, Hancu I, Vogel MW: B1 mapping by Bloch-Siegert shift.
Magn Reson Med 2010, 63(5):1315-1322.
15. Parker GJ, Roberts C, Macdonald A, Buonaccorsi GA, Cheung S, Buckley DL,
Jackson A, Watson Y, Davies K, Jayson GC: Experimentally-derived functional
form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for
dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006, 56(5):993-1000.
16. Rakow-Penner R, Daniel B, Yu H, Sawyer-Glover A, Glover GH: Relaxation times of
breast tissue at 1.5T and 3T measured using IDEAL. Journal of magnetic resonance
imaging : JMRI 2006, 23(1):87-91.
17. Bottomley PA, Hardy CJ, Argersinger RE, Allen-Moore G: A review of 1H nuclear
magnetic resonance relaxation in pathology: are T1 and T2 diagnostic? Med Phys
1987, 14(1):1-37.
18. Eliat PA, Dedieu V, Bertino C, Boute V, Lacroix J, Constans JM, de Korvin B,
Vincent C, Bailly C, Joffre F et al: Magnetic resonance imaging contrast-enhanced
relaxometry of breast tumors: an MRI multicenter investigation concerning 100
patients. Magn Reson Imaging 2004, 22(4):475-481.
ADDIN
19. Liang J, Sammet S, Yang X, Jia G, Takayama Y, Knopp MV: Intraindividual
in vivo comparison of gadolinium contrast agents for pharmacokinetic analysis
using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2010,
45(5):233-244.
Page 8 of 8