Loffroy, R. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2018

Comparison of tri-exponential decay vs. bi-exponential decay and full fitting vs. segmented fitting for modeling liver intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MRI

PurposeTo determine whether bi- or tri-exponential models, and full or segmented fittings, better fit IVIM imaging signal of healthy livers.\n\nMaterials and methodsDiffusion-weighted images were acquired with a 3-T scanner using respiratory-triggered echo-planar sequence and 16 b-values (0[~]800 s/mm2). Eighteen healthy volunteers had liver scanned twice in the same session, and then once again in another session. Region of interest (ROI)-based measurements were processed with bi-exponential model full fitting and segmented fitting (threshold b-value = 80 s/mm2), as well as tri-exponential model full fitting and segmented fitting (threshold b-value = 200 s/mm2).\n\nResultsWith all scans signal averaged, bi-exponential model full fitting showed Dslow=1.14, Dfast=193.6x10-3 mm2/s, and PF=16.9%, and segmented fitting showed Dslow=1.03, Dfast=56.7x10-3 mm2/s, and PF=21.3%. IVIM parameters derived from tri-exponential model were similar for full fitting and segmented fitting, with a slow (Dslow=0.98x10-3 mm2/s; Fslow=76.4 or 76.6%), a fast (Dfast=15.1 or 15.4x10-3 mm2/s; Ffast=11.8 or 11.7%) and a very fast (DVfast=445.0 or 448.8x10-3 mm2/s; FVfast=11.8 or 11.7 %) diffusion compartments. Tri-exponential model provided an overall better fit than bi-exponential model. For bi-exponential model, full fitting provided better fit at very low and low b-values compared with segmented fitting with the later tended to underestimate Dfast, however, segmented method demonstrated lower error in signal prediction for high b-values. Compared with full fitting, tri-exponential segmented fitting offered better scan-rescan reproducibility.\n\nConclusionFor healthy liver, tri-exponential modelling is preferred than bi-exponential modelling. For bi-exponential model, segmented fitting underestimates Dfast, but offers more accurate estimation of Dslow.

biophysics↗

bioRxiv2017

IVIM parameters have good scan-rescan reproducibility when evidential motion contaminated and poorly fitted image data are removed

BackgroundIntravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) diffusion MRI is a promising technique for liver pathology evaluation, but this techniques scan-rescan reproducibility has been reported to be unsatisfactory.\n\nObjectiveTo understand whether IVIM MRI parameters for liver parenchyma can be good after removal of motion contaminated and/or poorly fitted image data.\n\nMaterial and MethodsEighteen healthy volunteers had liver scanned twice at the same session to assess scan-rescan repeatability, and again in another session after an average interval of 13 days to assess reproducibility. Diffusion weighted image were acquired with a 3T scanner using respiratory-triggered echo-planar sequence and 16 b-values (0 to 800 s/mm2). Measurement was performed on the right liver with segmented-unconstrained least square fitting. Image series with evidential anatomical mismatch, apparent artifacts, and poorly fitted signal intensity vs. b-value curve were excluded. A minimum of three slices was deemed necessary for IVIM parameter estimation of a liver.\n\nResultsWith total 54 examinations, 6 scans did not satisfy inclusion criteria, leading to a success rate of 89%; and 14 volunteers were finally included. With each scan a mean of 5.3 slices (range: 3-10 slices) were utilized for analysis. Using threshold b-value=80s/mm2, the coefficient of variation and within-subject coefficient of variation for repeatability and reproducibility were: 2.86% and 4.24% for Dslow, 3.81% and 4.24%, for PF, 18.16% and 24.88% for Dfast; and those for reproducibility were 2.48% and 3.24% for Dslow; 4.91% and 5.38% for PF; 21.18% and 30.89% for Dfast.\n\nConclusionIVIM parameter scan-rescan reproducibility can be potentially good.

biophysics↗