Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]922
• Technical Article •
Preliminary study of 3D-APTw imaging in the evaluation of clinical scanning feasibility and image quality of primary liver cancer
QI Xiaohui  WANG Qi  SHEN Zhiwei  DUAN Mengting  LIU Xiang  PAN Jiangyang  FAN Xueli  JIA Litao  WANG Yaning  DU Yu 

Cite this article as: QI X H, WANG Q, SHEN Z W, et al. Preliminary study of 3D-APTw imaging in the evaluation of clinical scanning feasibility and image quality of primary liver cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 15(3): 163-169. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.03.026.


[Abstract] Objective To investigate the feasibility of parameter optimized 3 dimensions amide proton transfer weighted (3D-APTw) imaging for image quality evaluation and clinical scanning in primary liver cancer.Materials and Methods A total of 109 patients with suspected primary liver cancer were prospectively collected from October 2020 to February 2022. Philips 3.0 T MRI equipment was used for scanning, and T1WI, T2WI, diffusion-weighted imaging, amide proton transfer weighted (ATPw) and multi-phase enhanced images were collected. The machine automatically generates an 3D-APTw image of the liver corrected by B0. The scanning success rate and calculation success rate of 3D-APTw imaging were calculated. Kendall agreement consistency test was used to analyze the subjective score of inter-observer and intra-observer APTw image quality. SNR and CNR, APTw of tumor and liver were measured for cases with subjective scores above 3 and calculated and the coefficient of variation was calculated for each parameter value. Intra-group correlation coefficient was used to analyze the consistency of intra-observer and inter-observer repeatability measurements.Results Among the 109 patients, 11 patients had signal loss in the lesion area in 3D-APTw images, and the scanning success rate was 89.91% (98/109). Among the remaining 98 patients, 78 patients had APTw image subjective score of more than 3 points, and the calculation success rate was 71.56% (78/109). The intraobserver and interobserver subjective scores of 3D-APTw image quality with a correlation coefficient of 0.771 and 0.692, P<0.01. ICC of intraobserver and interobserver agreement with APTw values in tumor tissue was 0.822 and 0.811, while ICC of intraobserver agreement with APTw, SNR and CNR in hepatic tissue was 0.675, 0.634, 0.666. ICC of interobserver agreement with APTw, SNR and CNR in hepatic tissue was 0.614, 0.290, 0.560. APTw value of tumor tissue was higher than that of liver tissue [(2.55±0.08) % vs. (1.45±0.07) %)], and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). The coefficients of variation of APTw values in tumor tissue and liver were 30.40% and 44.40%, respectively. SNR and CNR were 25.92±18.50 and 3.35±3.20. The coefficient of variation was 71.40% for SNR and 90.00% for CNR.Conclusions Parameter-optimized 3D-APTw imaging can be used for clinical scanning of primary liver cancer, but it is prone to signal loss or artifact due to the influence of respiratory movement, gallbladder or blood vessels, so there is still room for improvement in parameter setting and imaging technology to further optimize its image quality.
[Keywords] primary liver cancer；diagnostic feasibility；image quality；3 dimensions-amide proton transfer weighted imaging；magnetic resonance imaging

QI Xiaohui1   WANG Qi1*   SHEN Zhiwei2   DUAN Mengting1   LIU Xiang1   PAN Jiangyang1   FAN Xueli1   JIA Litao1   WANG Yaning1   DU Yu1  

1 Department of CT/MRI, No. 4 Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050000, China

2 Philips (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Beijing 100600, China

Corresponding author: WANG Q, E-mail: wq20@hotmail.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2023-05-07
Accepted  2023-11-24
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.03.026
Cite this article as: QI X H, WANG Q, SHEN Z W, et al. Preliminary study of 3D-APTw imaging in the evaluation of clinical scanning feasibility and image quality of primary liver cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 15(3): 163-169. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.03.026.

[1]
KAMIMURA K, NAKAJO M, YONEYAMA T, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging of tumors: theory, clinical applications, pitfalls, and future directions[J]. Jpn J Radiol, 2019, 37(2): 109-116. DOI: 10.1007/s11604-018-0787-3.
[2]
LIU N. Application progress of amide proton transfer imaging in tumor imaging[J]. J Pract Med Imag, 2020, 21(1): 50-52. DOI: 10.16106/j.cnki.cn14-1281/r.2020.01.019.
[3]
PARK J E, KIM H S, PARK S Y, et al. Identification of early response to anti-angiogenic therapy in recurrent glioblastoma: amide proton transfer-weighted and perfusion-weighted MRI compared with diffusion-weighted MRI[J]. Radiology, 2020, 295(2): 397-406. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020191376.
[4]
JIANG S S, EBERHART C G, LIM M, et al. Identifying recurrent malignant glioma after treatment using amide proton transfer-weighted MR imaging: a validation study with image-guided stereotactic biopsy[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2019, 25(2): 552-561. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1233.
[5]
MEHRABIAN H, DESMOND K L, SOLIMAN H, et al. Differentiation between radiation necrosis and tumor progression using chemical exchange saturation transfer[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2017, 23(14): 3667-3675. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2265.
[6]
JOO B, HAN K, CHOI Y S, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging for differentiation of benign and atypical meningiomas[J]. Eur Radiol, 2018, 28(1): 331-339. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4962-1.
[7]
YU L, LI C M, LUO X J, et al. Differentiation of malignant and benign head and neck tumors with amide proton transfer-weighted MR imaging[J]. Mol Imaging Biol, 2019, 21(2): 348-355. DOI: 10.1007/s11307-018-1248-1.
[8]
CHOI Y S, AHN S S, LEE S K, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging to discriminate between low- and high-grade gliomas: added value to apparent diffusion coefficient and relative cerebral blood volume[J]. Eur Radiol, 2017, 27(8): 3181-3189. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4732-0.
[9]
ZHOU J Y, HEO H Y, KNUTSSON L, et al. APT-weighted MRI: techniques, current neuro applications, and challenging issues[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 50(2): 347-364. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26645.
[10]
TAKAYAMA Y, NISHIE A, TOGAO O, et al. Amide proton transfer MR imaging of endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma: association with histologic grade[J]. Radiology, 2018, 286(3): 909-917. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170349.
[11]
LI B B, SUN H Z, ZHANG S Y, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging to evaluate the grading of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a comparative study using 18 F FDG PET[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 50(1): 261-268. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26572.
[12]
NISHIE A, TAKAYAMA Y, ASAYAMA Y, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging can predict tumor grade in rectal cancer[J/OL]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2018, 51: 96-103 [2023-05-06]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29729438/. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2018.04.017.
[13]
NISHIE A, ASAYAMA Y, ISHIGAMI K, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging to predict tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2019, 34(1): 140-146. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14315.
[14]
DENG X J, LIU M L, ZHOU Q, et al. Predicting treatment response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix using amide proton transfer imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion imaging[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2022, 103(12): 618-624. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2022.09.001.
[15]
JIA F, WU B L, YAN R F, et al. Prediction model for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma response to transarterial chemoembolization[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 52(6): 1657-1667. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27189.
[16]
ZHANG J X, ZHU W Z, TAIN R, et al. Improved differentiation of low-grade and high-grade gliomas and detection of tumor proliferation using APT contrast fitted from Z-spectrum[J]. Mol Imaging Biol, 2018, 20(4): 623-631. DOI: 10.1007/s11307-017-1154-y.
[17]
CHEN S Z, YUAN J, DENG M, et al. Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MR technique for in-vivo liver imaging at 3.0 tesla[J]. Eur Radiol, 2016, 26(6): 1792-1800. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3972-0.
[18]
LIN Y, LUO X J, YU L, et al. Amide proton transfer-weighted MRI for predicting histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with diffusion-weighted imaging[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2019, 9(10): 1641-1651. DOI: 10.21037/qims.2019.08.07.
[19]
WU B L, JIA F, LI X K, et al. Comparative study of amide proton transfer imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion imaging for predicting histologic grade of hepatocellular carcinoma[J/OL]. Front Oncol, 2020, 10: 562049 [2023-05-06]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33194630/. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.562049.
[20]
CHEN Y, WANG X Q, SU T, et al. Feasibility evaluation of amide proton transfer-weighted imaging in the parotid glands: a strategy to recognize artifacts and measure APT value[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2021, 11(6): 2279-2291. DOI: 10.21037/qims-20-675.
[21]
KIM J, WU Y, GUO Y K, et al. A review of optimization and quantification techniques for chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI toward sensitive in vivo imaging[J]. Contrast Media Mol Imaging, 2015, 10(3): 163-178. DOI: 10.1002/cmmi.1628.
[22]
SEO N, JEONG H K, CHOI J Y, et al. Liver MRI with amide proton transfer imaging: feasibility and accuracy for the characterization of focal liver lesions[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(1): 222-231. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07122-y.
[23]
DENG M, CHEN S Z, YUAN J, et al. Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) MR technique for liver imaging at 3.0 tesla: an evaluation of different offset number and an after-meal and over-night-fast comparison[J]. Mol Imaging Biol, 2016, 18(2): 274-282. DOI: 10.1007/s11307-015-0887-8.
[24]
ZHAO J Y, HUANG S T, XIE H, et al. An evidence-based approach to evaluate the accuracy of amide proton transfer-weighted MRI in characterization of gliomas[J]. Medicine, 2019, 98(10): e14768 [2023-05-06]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30855481/. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014768.
[25]
CHEN Y Q, LI X B, SONG Y K, et al. The diagnostic efficacy of amide proton transfer imaging in grading gliomas and predicting tumor proliferation[J]. Neuroreport, 2019, 30(2): 139-144. DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0000000000001174.
[26]
LI G M, JIANG G H, MEI Y J, et al. Applying amide proton transfer-weighted imaging (APTWI) to distinguish papillary thyroid carcinomas and predominantly solid adenomatous nodules: comparison with diffusion-weighted imaging[J/OL]. Front Oncol, 2020, 10: 918 [2023-02-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32637356/. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00918.
[27]
MENG N, WANG J, SUN J, et al. Using amide proton transfer to identify cervical squamous carcinoma/adenocarcinoma and evaluate its differentiation grade[J/OL]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 61: 9-15 [2023-02-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31071471/. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2019.05.005.
[28]
MENG N, WANG X J, SUN J, et al. Evaluation of amide proton transfer-weighted imaging for endometrial carcinoma histological features: a comparative study with diffusion kurtosis imaging[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(11): 8388-8398. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07966-y.
[29]
TIAN S F, CHEN A L, LI Y, et al. The combined application of amide proton transfer imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging for differentiating stage Ia endometrial carcinoma and endometrial polyps[J/OL]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 99: 67-72 [2023-02-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36603780/. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2022.12.026.
[30]
KAMIMURA K, NAKAJO M, GOHARA M, et al. Differentiation of hemangioblastoma from brain metastasis using MR amide proton transfer imaging[J]. J Neuroimaging, 2022, 32(5): 920-929. DOI: 10.1111/jon.13019.
[31]
ZHANG N, KANG J Y, WANG H L, et al. Differentiation of fibroadenomas versus malignant breast tumors utilizing three-dimensional amide proton transfer weighted magnetic resonance imaging[J/OL]. Clin Imaging, 2022, 81: 15-23 [2023-02-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34597999/. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.09.002.

PREV Comparative study of breast magnetic resonance T2WI sequence image quality based on two Dixon techniques
NEXT Application of neck imaging reporting and data systems in MRI diagnosis of early exclusive mucosal local recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn