Robustness of MR Elastography in the Healthy Brain: Repeatability, Reliability, and Effect of Different Reconstruction Methods.
MR elastography
human brain
reconstruction
repeatability
shear modulus
stiffness
Journal
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI
ISSN: 1522-2586
Titre abrégé: J Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9105850
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
revised:
26
11
2020
received:
03
09
2020
accepted:
30
11
2020
pubmed:
7
1
2021
medline:
20
5
2021
entrez:
6
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Changes in brain stiffness can be an important biomarker for neurological disease. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) quantifies tissue stiffness, but the results vary between acquisition and reconstruction methods. To measure MRE repeatability and estimate the effect of different reconstruction methods and varying data quality on estimated brain stiffness. Prospective. Fifteen healthy subjects. 3T MRI, gradient-echo elastography sequence with a 50 Hz vibration frequency. Imaging was performed twice in each subject. Images were reconstructed using a curl-based and a finite-element-model (FEM)-based method. Stiffness was measured in the whole brain, in white matter, and in four cortical and four deep gray matter regions. Repeatability coefficients (RC), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated. MRE data quality was quantified by the ratio between shear waves and compressional waves. Median values with range are presented. Reconstruction methods were compared using paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and Spearman's rank correlation was calculated between MRE data quality and stiffness. Holm-Bonferroni corrections were employed to adjust for multiple comparisons. In the whole brain, CV was 4.3% and 3.8% for the curl and the FEM reconstruction, respectively, with 4.0-12.8% for subregions. Whole-brain ICC was 0.60-0.74, ranging from 0.20 to 0.89 in different regions. RC for the whole brain was 0.14 kPa and 0.17 kPa for the curl and FEM methods, respectively. FEM reconstruction resulted in 39% higher stiffness than the curl reconstruction (P < 0.05). MRE data quality, defined as shear-compression wave ratio, was higher in peripheral regions than in central regions of the brain (P < 0.05). No significant correlations were observed between MRE data quality and stiffness estimates. MRE of the human brain is a robust technique in terms of repeatability. Caution is warranted when comparing stiffness values obtained with different techniques. 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Changes in brain stiffness can be an important biomarker for neurological disease. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) quantifies tissue stiffness, but the results vary between acquisition and reconstruction methods.
PURPOSE
To measure MRE repeatability and estimate the effect of different reconstruction methods and varying data quality on estimated brain stiffness.
STUDY TYPE
Prospective.
SUBJECTS
Fifteen healthy subjects.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE
3T MRI, gradient-echo elastography sequence with a 50 Hz vibration frequency.
ASSESSMENT
Imaging was performed twice in each subject. Images were reconstructed using a curl-based and a finite-element-model (FEM)-based method. Stiffness was measured in the whole brain, in white matter, and in four cortical and four deep gray matter regions. Repeatability coefficients (RC), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated. MRE data quality was quantified by the ratio between shear waves and compressional waves.
STATISTICAL TESTS
Median values with range are presented. Reconstruction methods were compared using paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and Spearman's rank correlation was calculated between MRE data quality and stiffness. Holm-Bonferroni corrections were employed to adjust for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS
In the whole brain, CV was 4.3% and 3.8% for the curl and the FEM reconstruction, respectively, with 4.0-12.8% for subregions. Whole-brain ICC was 0.60-0.74, ranging from 0.20 to 0.89 in different regions. RC for the whole brain was 0.14 kPa and 0.17 kPa for the curl and FEM methods, respectively. FEM reconstruction resulted in 39% higher stiffness than the curl reconstruction (P < 0.05). MRE data quality, defined as shear-compression wave ratio, was higher in peripheral regions than in central regions of the brain (P < 0.05). No significant correlations were observed between MRE data quality and stiffness estimates.
DATA CONCLUSION
MRE of the human brain is a robust technique in terms of repeatability. Caution is warranted when comparing stiffness values obtained with different techniques.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1510-1521Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
Murphy MC, Huston J 3rd, Ehman RL. MR elastography of the brain and its application in neurological diseases. Neuroimage 2019;187:176-183.
Bunevicius A, Schregel K, Sinkus R, Golby A, Patz S. Review: MR elastography of brain tumors. Neuroimage Clin 2019;25:102109.
Muthupillai R, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography. Nat Med 1996;2(5):601-603.
Pepin KM, Ehman RL, McGee KP. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in cancer: Technique, analysis, and applications. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 2015;90-91:32-48.
Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: Technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37(3):544-555.
Fovargue D, Nordsletten D, Sinkus R. Stiffness reconstruction methods for MR elastography. NMR Biomed 2018;31(10):e3935.
McGarry M, Johnson CL, Sutton BP, et al. Including spatial information in nonlinear inversion MR elastography using soft prior regularization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2013;32(10):1901-1909.
Johnson CL, McGarry MD, Gharibans AA, et al. Local mechanical properties of white matter structures in the human brain. Neuroimage 2013;79:145-152.
Johnson CL, Schwarb H, McGarry DJM, et al. Viscoelasticity of subcortical gray matter structures. Hum Brain Mapp 2016;37(12):4221-4233.
Murphy MC, Huston J 3rd, Jack CR Jr, et al. Measuring the characteristic topography of brain stiffness with magnetic resonance elastography. PLoS One 2013;8(12):e81668.
McGarry MD, Van Houten EE, Perrinez PR, Pattison AJ, Weaver JB, Paulsen KD. An octahedral shear strain-based measure of SNR for 3D MR elastography. Phys Med Biol 2011;56(13):N153-N164.
Runge JH, Hoelzl SH, Sudakova J, et al. A novel magnetic resonance elastography transducer concept based on a rotational eccentric mass: Preliminary experiences with the gravitational transducer. Phys Med Biol 2019;64(4):045007.
Guenthner C, Runge JH, Sinkus R, Kozerke S. Analysis and improvement of motion encoding in magnetic resonance elastography. NMR Biomed 2018;31(5):e3908.
Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: Sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 1999;42(5):952-962.
Costantini M. A novel phase unwrapping method based on network programming. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 1998;36(3):813-821.
Patz S, Fovargue D, Schregel K, et al. Imaging localized neuronal activity at fast time scales through biomechanics. Sci Adv 2019;5(4):eaav3816.
Garteiser P, Sahebjavaher RS, Ter Beek LC, et al. Rapid acquisition of multifrequency, multislice and multidirectional MR elastography data with a fractionally encoded gradient echo sequence. NMR Biomed 2013;26(10):1326-1335.
Guenthner C, Sethi S, Troelstra M, Dokumaci AS, Sinkus R, Kozerke S. Ristretto MRE: A generalized multi-shot GRE-MRE sequence. NMR Biomed 2019;32(5):e4049.
Sinkus R, Tanter M, Xydeas T, Catheline S, Bercoff J, Fink M. Viscoelastic shear properties of in vivo breast lesions measured by MR elastography. Magn Reson Imaging 2005;23(2):159-165.
Savitzky A, Golay M. Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Am Chem Soc 1964;36(8):1627-1639.
Fovargue D, Kozerke S, Sinkus R, Nordsletten D. Robust MR elastography stiffness quantification using a localized divergence free finite element reconstruction. Med Image Anal 2018;44:126-142.
Tofts P. Quantitative MRI of the brain: Measuring changes caused by disease. Chichester, UK, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2003. p 120.
Tzourio-Mazoyer N, Landeau B, Papathanassiou D, et al. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. Neuroimage 2002;15(1):273-289.
Bykowski JL, Latour LL, Warach S. More accurate identification of reversible ischemic injury in human stroke by cerebrospinal fluid suppressed diffusion-weighted imaging. Stroke 2004;35(5):1100-1106.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86(2):420-428.
Klein R. Bland-Altman and Correlation Plot. Available from https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/45049-bland-altman-and-correlation-plot: MATLAB Central File Exchange; 2020.
Barnhart HX, Barboriak DP. Applications of the repeatability of quantitative imaging biomarkers: A review of statistical analysis of repeat data sets. Transl Oncol 2009;2(4):231-235.
Simon M, Guo J, Papazoglou S, et al. Non-invasive characterization of intracranial tumors by magnetic resonance elastography. New J Phys 2013;15:085024.
Streitberger KJ, Reiss-Zimmermann M, Freimann FB, et al. High-resolution mechanical imaging of glioblastoma by multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography. PLoS One 2014;9(10):e110588.
Reiss-Zimmermann M, Streitberger KJ, Sack I, et al. High resolution imaging of viscoelastic properties of intracranial tumours by multi-frequency magnetic resonance elastography. Clin Neuroradiol 2015;25(4):371-378.
Sack I, Beierbach B, Wuerfel J, et al. The impact of aging and gender on brain viscoelasticity. Neuroimage 2009;46(3):652-657.
Hiscox LV, McGarry MDJ, Schwarb H, et al. Standard-space atlas of the viscoelastic properties of the human brain. Hum Brain Map 2020;41:5282-5300.
Murphy MC, Huston J 3rd, Jack CR Jr, et al. Decreased brain stiffness in Alzheimer's disease determined by magnetic resonance elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;34(3):494-498.
Gerischer LM, Fehlner A, Kobe T, et al. Combining viscoelasticity, diffusivity and volume of the hippocampus for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease based on magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage Clin 2018;18:485-493.
Streitberger KJ, Wiener E, Hoffmann J, et al. In vivo viscoelastic properties of the brain in normal pressure hydrocephalus. NMR Biomed 2011;24(4):385-392.
Wuerfel J, Paul F, Beierbach B, et al. MR-elastography reveals degradation of tissue integrity in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage 2010;49(3):2520-2525.
Hamhaber U, Klatt D, Papazoglou S, et al. In vivo magnetic resonance elastography of human brain at 7 T and 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32(3):577-583.
Hiscox LV, Johnson CL, Barnhill E, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of the human brain: Technique, findings and clinical applications. Phys Med Biol 2016;61(24):R401-R437.