Reproducibility of intravoxel incoherent motion quantification in the liver across field strengths and gradient hardware

• Published in: Magnetic resonance in medicine 2024-12, Vol.92 (6), p.2652-2669
• Main Authors: Simchick, Gregory, Allen, Timothy J., Hernando, Diego
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: abdomen; Biomarkers; Blood; Data acquisition; Diffusion coefficient; diffusion weighted imaging; Hardware; intravoxel incoherent motion; Liver; Lower bounds; Magnetic resonance imaging; Modelling; quantitative magnetic resonance imaging; Reproducibility; Robustness; Scanners; Two dimensional analysis; Velocity
• ISSN: 0740-3194; 1522-2594; 1522-2594
• DOI: 10.1002/mrm.30237

Purpose To evaluate reproducibility and interlobar agreement of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) quantification in the liver across field strengths and MR scanners with different gradient hardware. Methods Cramer‐Rao lower bound optimization was performed to determine optimized monopolar and motion‐robust 2D (b‐value and first‐order motion moment [M1]) IVIM‐DWI acquisitions. Eleven healthy volunteers underwent diffusion MRI of the liver, where each optimized acquisition was obtained five times across three MRI scanners. For each data set, IVIM estimates (diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo‐diffusion coefficients (d1*$$ {d}_1^{\ast } $$ and d2*$$ {d}_2^{\ast } $$), blood velocity SDs (Vb1 and Vb2), and perfusion fractions [f1 and f2]) were obtained in the right and left liver lobes using two signal models (pseudo‐diffusion and M1‐dependent physical) with and without T2 correction (fc1 and fc2) and three fitting techniques (tri‐exponential region of interest–based full and segmented fitting and blood velocity SD distribution fitting). Reproducibility and interlobar agreement were compared across methods using within‐subject and pairwise coefficients of variation (CVw and CVp), paired sample t‐tests, and Bland–Altman analysis. Results Using a combination of motion‐robust 2D (b‐M1) data acquisition, M1‐dependent physical signal modeling with T2 correction, and blood velocity SD distribution fitting, multiscanner reproducibility with median CVw = 5.09%, 11.3%, 9.20%, 14.2%, and 12.6% for D, Vb1, Vb2, fc1, and fc2, respectively, and interlobar agreement with CVp = 8.14%, 11.9%, 8.50%, 49.9%, and 42.0%, respectively, was achieved. Conclusion Recently proposed advanced IVIM acquisition, signal modeling, and fitting techniques may facilitate reproducible IVIM quantification in the liver, as needed for establishment of IVIM‐based quantitative biomarkers for detection, staging, and treatment monitoring of diseases.