Synopsis
Pharmacokinetic (PK)
parameter maps derived from DCE-MRI provide quantitative physiological
information that aids in cancer diagnosis and assessment of treatment response.
Recently, direct reconstruction of PK maps from under-sampled k,t-space has
shown great potential to provide optimal detection of kinetic parameter maps
from an information theoretic perspective. We build on prior work (using the
Patlak model) and demonstrate direct reconstruction of kinetic parameter maps
using the extended-Tofts model, which is a more appropriate model in brain
tumor. We demonstrate convergence behavior, computational efficiency, and
application to brain DCE-MRI.INTRODUCTION
T1-weighted dynamic
contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI followed by pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling provides quantitative kinetic
parameter maps (e.g. K
trans, K
ep, v
p) that aid
in the diagnosis and assessment of treatment response. Recently, efforts have
been made to directly reconstruct PK maps from under-sampled k,t-space data
[1-3] and
provide acceleration and/or reduced PK parameter variability compared to
conventional indirect methods that perform PK modeling after reconstruction of
a time series of anatomic images. Our prior work [3] utilized a Patlak
model which assumes no backflux from interstitium to plasma space, and is
applicable to studies of slow blood-brain-barrier (BBB) leakage [4] and short
duration scans [5]. In this work, we have developed an extension of this
direct reconstruction to the extended-Tofts model (eTofts) [6], which is known to be more appropriate for assessing brain tumor margin and areas with high BBB
leakage [7]. We demonstrate convergence behavior, computational efficiency, and
application to retrospectively under-sampled brain DCE-MRI.
METHODS
Figure 1 illustrates the DCE-MRI forward model of mapping PK
parameter maps to k,t-space data. The eTofts model is defined as $$$C_t(t)=K^{trans}\int_{0}^{t}C_p(u)e^{-K_{ep}(t-u)}du+v_pC_p(t) $$$, where Ct(t)
is the contrast concentration in the tissue, Cp(t) is the arterial
input function (AIF). A population-averaged AIF [8] was used in this study. We formulate the estimation of Ktrans,
Kep and vp as the following least-square
optimization problem: $$(K^{trans},K_{ep},v_p)=\underset{K^{trans},K_{ep},v_p}{argmin}||k_u-y(K^{trans},K_{ep},v_p)||_2^2+\lambda_1||\Psi K^{trans}||_1+\lambda_2||\Psi K_{ep}||_1+\lambda_3||\Psi v_p||_1$$
,where Ktrans, Kep,
and vp maps are consistent to under-sampled k-space ku by
a general function y that incorporates all steps including eTofts modeling, T1-weighted signal equation, coil
sensitivity, and under-sampling matrix, as illustrated in Figure 1. Sparsity is
enforced by minimizing l1 norm of the wavelet transform domain
(Ψ) of the parameter maps. A closed form
gradient of the cost function with respect to each PK parameter is evaluated,
and a gradient-based l-BFGS algorithm is used to efficiently solve the optimization
problem [9]. Five fully-sampled DCE data sets from brain tumor patients were
acquired in a 3T GE scanner (FOV: 22×22cm, spatial resolution: 0.9×1.3×7.0mm3,
5 sec temporal resolution, 50 time frames, fast spoiled gradient echo
sequence). Patient data were retrospectively under-sampled in the kx-ky plane,
simulating the ky-kz plane in a 3D whole-brain acquisition [10], using a
randomized golden-angle sampling pattern [11]. Reconstruction results at undersampling factor of 20 (R=20) were compared to PK parameter maps computed from
fully-sampled images using eTofts and Patlak modeling.
RESULTS
Figure 2 shows K
trans
maps from two representative cases. Consistent with literature [7], Patlak modeling
underestimated K
trans in the tumor margin, compared to eTofts modeling. K
trans maps computed
using direct reconstruction of fully sampled k-space data are consistent with
the conventional approach, the averaged root Mean-Square-Error (rMSE) in the tumor regions of interest is 0.0043. The direct reconstruction provide faithful restoration of K
trans
values at R=20, providing accurate depiction of tumor
boundaries and tumor values (rMSE=0.0195). Estimation of K
ep in eTofts
modeling has high variance even from fully-sampled data (not shown). However, accounting
for K
ep improves the accuracy of K
trans maps. Figure 3 shows the objective function as
a function of iteration number for different initial PK map guesses. The reconstruction converged to the same
solution irrespective of all the initialization, suggesting the robustness of
the optimization to local minima. The reconstruction for a single slice dynamic
images (k-space data matrix size 256x256x50x8) took approximately 6 minutes on
a laptop computer using Matlab. This is significantly faster than nonlinear
least-square fitting algorithms commonly used in DCE-MRI (eg. around 50 minutes
using ROCKETSHIP, a recent DCE-MRI toolbox [12]) to solve PK parameters
from fully-sampled data sets. The gains in computation times are achieved
because an analytic gradient is used instead of a numerical difference as
gradient approximation.
DISCUSSION
We demonstrate the
feasibility of direct reconstruction of DCE-MRI kinetic parameter maps from
highly under-sampled k,t-space using the extended-Tofts model. The direct
reconstruction allows for better utilization of what is known about contrast
agent kinetics, and allows for efficient parameter estimation. A gradient-based
algorithm was found to be robust to local minima, providing fast reconstruction
times. Extensions to incorporate more sophisticated model such as the
2-compartment exchange model may be feasible. Increasing model complexity does
have the effect of improving data fit, but increasing the variance of estimated
PK parameter maps. More temporal frames and higher temporal resolution may be
required; this is a well-known a trade-off in PK model selection for DCE-MRI
[13]. A population-averaged AIF was used in this study [8], but it is
possible to extract patient-specific AIFs from the under-sampled data [14], or
jointly estimate the AIF with the PK maps.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] SP Awate, et al. Proc.
IEEE-EMBS, pp. 936-941,2006.
[2] N Dikaois, et al.
Medical image Analysis, 18(7), 989-1001.
[3] Y Guo, et al. Proc.
ISMRM 2015, p573.
[4] A Montagne et al.
2015, Neuron 85, 296–302.
[5] H. Larsson et al.
MRM, 16: 117-131, 1990.
[6] P Tofts et al.
JMRI 10(3): 223-232, 1999.
[7] S Cramer et al. J
Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2014 Oct; 34(10):1655-65.
[8] G Parker, et al.
MRM 56:993–1000, 2006.
[9] M Schmidt:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~schmidtm/Software/minFunc.html
[10] RM Lebel, et al.
MRM 71:635-644, 2014.
[11] Y Zhu, et al. Proc.
ISMRM 2014, p4365.
[12] S. Barnes, et al.
BMC Medical Imaging 15(1): 19, 2015.
[13] S Sourbron et al.
NMR in Biomed 26(8):1004-27, 2013.
[14] RM Lebel, et al. Proc.
ISMRM 2015, p3705.