Multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography for elasticity quantitation and optimal tissue discrimination: A two-platform liver fibrosis mimicking phantom study.
magnetic resonance elastography
multifrequency
multiplatform
optimal conditions
phantom
quantitation
Journal
NMR in biomedicine
ISSN: 1099-1492
Titre abrégé: NMR Biomed
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8915233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
revised:
23
04
2021
received:
10
07
2020
accepted:
25
04
2021
pubmed:
27
5
2021
medline:
22
1
2022
entrez:
26
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the framework of algebraic inversion, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) repeatability, reproducibility and robustness were evaluated on extracted shear velocities (or elastic moduli). The same excitation system was implemented at two sites equipped with clinical MR scanners of 1.5 and 3 T. A set of four elastic, isotropic, homogeneous calibrated phantoms of distinct elasticity representing the spectrum of liver fibrosis severity was mechanically characterized. The repeatability of the measurements and the reproducibility between the two platforms were found to be excellent with mean coefficients of variations of 1.62% for the shear velocity mean values and 1.95% for the associated standard deviations. MRE velocities were robust to the amplitude and pattern variations of the displacement field with virtually no difference between outcomes from both magnets at identical excitation frequencies, even when the displacement field amplitude was six times smaller. However, MRE outcomes were very sensitive to the number of voxels per wavelength, s, of the recorded displacement field, with relative biases reaching 62% and precision loss by a factor of up to 23.5. For both magnetic field strengths, MRE accuracy and precision were largely degraded outside of established conditions of validity (6 ≲ s ≲ 9), resulting in estimated shear velocity values not significantly different between phantoms of increasing elasticity. When fulfilling the spatial sampling conditions, either prospectively in the acquisition or retrospectively before the reconstruction, MRE produced quantitative measurements that allowed to unambiguously discriminate, with infinitesimal p values, between the phantoms mimicking increasing severity of liver fibrosis.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e4543Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Leitão HS, Doblas S, Garteiser P, et al. Hepatic fibrosis, inflammation, and steatosis: influence on the MR viscoelastic and diffusion parameters in patients with chronic liver disease. Radiology. 2016;283(1):98-107. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151570
Ramião NG, Martins PS, Rynkevic R, Fernandes AA, Barroso M, Santos DC. Biomechanical properties of breast tissue, a state-of-the-art review. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2016;15(5):1307-1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-016-0763-8
Horowitz JM, Kamel IR, Arif-Tiwari H, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® chronic liver disease. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(5):S103-S117.
Bunevicius A, Schregel K, Sinkus R, Golby A, Patz S. Review: MR elastography of brain tumors. NeuroImage Clin. 2020:25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102109
Manduca A, Oliphant TE, Dresner MA, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography: non-invasive mapping of tissue elasticity. Med Image Anal. 2001;5(4):237-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1361-8415(00)00039-6
Baghani A, Salcudean S, Rohling R. Theoretical limitations of the elastic wave equation inversion for tissue elastography. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126(3):1541-1551.
Yue JL, Tardieu M, Julea F, et al. Acquisition and reconstruction conditions in silico for accurate and precise magnetic resonance elastography. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(22):8655-8670. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa9164
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.
Papazoglou S, Hamhaber U, Braun J, Sack I. Algebraic Helmholtz inversion in planar magnetic resonance elastography. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(12):3147-3158.
Julea F. Conditions de validité de l'Élastographie par Résonance Magnétique. 2018. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01930356/document
Dittmann F, Hirsch S, Tzschätzsch H, Guo J, Braun J, Sack I. In vivo wideband multifrequency MR elastography of the human brain and liver. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;76(4):1116-1126.
Julea F, Wang H, Yue JL, Boucneau T, Pellot-Barakat C, Maître X. Magnetic resonance elastography accuracy and precision in rat lung and liver at 1.5 T. Joint Ann Meet ISMRM-ESMRMB. 2018:5591.
Kim YS, Jang YN, Song JS. Comparison of gradient-recalled echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(4):1709-1718.
Lefebvre T, Wartelle-Bladou C, Wong P, et al. Prospective comparison of transient, point shear wave, and magnetic resonance elastography for staging liver fibrosis. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(12):6477-6488.
Green MA, Bilston LE, Sinkus R. In vivo brain viscoelastic properties measured by magnetic resonance elastography. NMR Biomed. 2008;21(7):755-764.
Shuck LZ, Advani SH. Rheological response of human brain tissue in shear. J Basic Eng. 1972;94(4):905-911.
Bigot M, Chauveau F, Amaz C, Sinkus R, Beuf O, Lambert SA. The apparent mechanical effect of isolated amyloid-β and α-synuclein aggregates revealed by multi-frequency MRE. NMR Biomed. 2020;33(1):e4174. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4174
Oudry J, Lynch T, Vappou J, Sandrin L, Miette V. Comparison of four different techniques to evaluate the elastic properties of phantom in elastography: is there a gold standard? Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(19):5775-5793.
Yue J. Magnetic Resonance Elastography and Supersonic Shear Imaging: simulation, experimental comparison and application to the characterization of the liver. 2017. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01682936/document
Maître X, Lamain E, Sinkus R, Louis B, Darrasse L. Whole brain MRE with guided pressure waves. ISMRM 19th Sci Meet Exhib. 2011:3489.
R Core team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
Okamoto RJ, Clayton EH, Bayly PV. Viscoelastic properties of soft gels: comparison of magnetic resonance elastography and dynamic shear testing in the shear wave regime. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(19):6379-6400.
Oudry J, Vappou J, Choquet P, Willinger R, Sandrin L, Constantinesco A. Ultrasound-based transient elastography compared to magnetic resonance elastography in soft tissue-mimicking gels. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(22):6979-6990.
Urban MW, Chen J, Ehman RL. Comparison of shear velocity dispersion in viscoelastic phantoms measured by ultrasound-based shear wave elastography and magnetic resonance elastography. 2017 IEEE Intern Ultras Sympo (IUS). 2017;1-4.
Yin M, Glaser KJ, Talwalkar JA, Chen J, Manduca A, Ehman RL. Hepatic MR elastography: clinical performance in a series of 1377 consecutive examinations. Radiology. 2015;278(1):114-124.
Garteiser P, Doblas S, Beers BEV. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver and spleen: methods and applications. NMR Biomed. 2018;31(10):e3891. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3891
Muthupillai R, Ehman RL. Spectrally-Selective Gradient Waveforms: Applications in MR Elastography. ISMRM 6th Scientific Meeting Exhi. 1998:2180. https://cds.ismrm.org/ismrm-1998/PDF8/p2180.pdf
Klatt D, Hamhaber U, Asbach P, Braun J, Sack I. Noninvasive assessment of the rheological behavior of human organs using multifrequency MR elastography: a study of brain and liver viscoelasticity. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(24):7281-7294.
Asbach P, Klatt D, Hamhaber U, et al. Assessment of liver viscoelasticity using multifrequency MR elastography. Magn Reson Med. 2008;60(2):373-379.
Streitberger K-J, Fehlner A, Pache F, et al. Multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography of the brain reveals tissue degeneration in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):2206-2215.
Schrank F, Warmuth C, Tzschätzsch H, et al. Cardiac-gated steady-state multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography of the brain: Effect of cerebral arterial pulsation on brain viscoelasticity. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2020;40:991-1001.