Impact of b-Value Sampling Scheme on Brain IVIM Parameter Estimation in Healthy Subjects.
brain
diffusion magnetic resonance imaging
intravoxel incoherent motion
neuroimaging
Journal
Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
ISSN: 1880-2206
Titre abrégé: Magn Reson Med Sci
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101153368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Aug 2020
03 Aug 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
16
10
2019
medline:
24
11
2020
entrez:
16
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis has attracted the interest of the clinical community due to its close relationship with microperfusion. Nevertheless, there is no clear reference protocol for its implementation; one of the questions being which b-value distribution to use. This study aimed to stress the importance of the sampling scheme and to show that an optimized b-value distribution decreases the variance associated with IVIM parameters in the brain with respect to a regular distribution in healthy volunteers. Ten volunteers were included in this study; images were acquired on a 1.5T MR scanner. Two distributions of 16 b-values were used: one considered 'regular' due to its close association with that used in other studies, and the other considered 'optimized' according to previous studies. IVIM parameters were adjusted according to the bi-exponential model, using two-step method. Analysis was undertaken in ROI defined using in the Automated Anatomical Labeling atlas, and parameters distributions were compared in a total of 832 ROI. Maps with fewer speckles were obtained with the 'optimized' distribution. Coefficients of variation did not change significantly for the estimation of the diffusion coefficient D but decreased by approximately 39% for the pseudo-diffusion coefficient estimation and by 21% for the perfusion fraction. Distributions of adjusted parameters were found significantly different in 50% of the cases for the perfusion fraction, in 80% of the cases for the pseudo-diffusion coefficient and 17% of the cases for the diffusion coefficient. Observations across brain areas show that the range of average values for IVIM parameters is smaller in the 'optimized' case. Using an optimized distribution, data are sampled in a way that the IVIM signal decay is better described and less variance is obtained in the fitted parameters. The increased precision gained could help to detect small variations in IVIM parameters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31611542
doi: 10.2463/mrms.mp.2019-0061
pmc: PMC7553810
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
216-226Références
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Jun;45(6):1637-1647
pubmed: 27865032
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Aug;42(2):362-70
pubmed: 25407944
Neuroimage Clin. 2017 Jan 17;14:216-221
pubmed: 28180080
Radiology. 2008 Dec;249(3):891-9
pubmed: 19011186
NMR Biomed. 2017 Nov;30(11):
pubmed: 28885745
NMR Biomed. 2016 May;29(5):640-9
pubmed: 26952166
Neuroimage. 2015 Nov 15;122:1-5
pubmed: 26241684
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Dec;37(12):2251-2257
pubmed: 27561834
Eur Radiol. 2015 Jul;25(7):2049-58
pubmed: 25576232
NMR Biomed. 2015 Apr;28(4):468-85
pubmed: 25802212
Neuroimage Clin. 2016 Jun 02;11:780-788
pubmed: 27354956
Acta Radiol. 2001 Mar;42(2):123-8
pubmed: 11281143
MAGMA. 2015 Aug;28(4):377-83
pubmed: 25475914
Neuroimage. 2017 Aug 1;156:423-434
pubmed: 28412443
Clin Radiol. 2017 Jan;72(1):94.e1-94.e6
pubmed: 27712906
Radiology. 2012 Dec;265(3):874-81
pubmed: 23074258
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Feb;79(2):723-729
pubmed: 28480534
Neuroimage. 2017 May 15;152:340-347
pubmed: 28263927
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 May;39(5):1213-22
pubmed: 24127398
Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Oct;31(8):1445-52
pubmed: 23731534
Magn Reson Med. 2012 Jan;67(1):89-97
pubmed: 21702062
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 03;10(2):e0117706
pubmed: 25647423
Appl Radiol. 2014 Jul;43(7):22-29
pubmed: 26456989
Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Jul;29(6):766-76
pubmed: 21549538
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Dec;83(12):2109-2113
pubmed: 25277521
Clin Radiol. 2016 Sep;71(9):938.e11-6
pubmed: 27210244
Radiology. 2016 Jan;278(1):13-32
pubmed: 26690990
Radiology. 2016 Nov;281(2):337-356
pubmed: 27755938
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Jan;73(1):306-11
pubmed: 24478175
MAGMA. 2018 Apr;31(2):269-283
pubmed: 29075909
Clin Neuroradiol. 2017 Dec;27(4):485-492
pubmed: 27116215
Invest Radiol. 2016 Feb;51(2):90-9
pubmed: 26405835
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Oct;74(4):1077-85
pubmed: 25302780
Eur Radiol. 2015 Aug;25(8):2485-92
pubmed: 25693668
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2018 Apr 10;17(2):168-173
pubmed: 28819085
Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Dec;32(10):1247-58
pubmed: 25109587
Radiology. 1988 Aug;168(2):497-505
pubmed: 3393671
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 07;11(7):e0158887
pubmed: 27387822
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 May;45(5):1325-1334
pubmed: 27545824
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Mar;79(3):1674-1683
pubmed: 28626964