Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 629–638 | Cite as

Quantitative MRI of kidneys in renal disease

  • Timothy L. KlineEmail author
  • Marie E. Edwards
  • Ishan Garg
  • Maria V. Irazabal
  • Panagiotis Korfiatis
  • Peter C. Harris
  • Bernard F. King
  • Vicente E. Torres
  • Sudhakar K. Venkatesh
  • Bradley J. Erickson
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the reproducibility and utility of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences for the assessment of kidneys in young adults with normal renal function (eGFR ranged from 90 to 130 mL/min/1.73 m2) and patients with early renal disease (autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease).

Materials and methods

This prospective case–control study was performed on ten normal young adults (18–30 years old) and ten age- and sex-matched patients with early renal parenchymal disease (autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease). All subjects underwent a comprehensive kidney MRI protocol, including qualitative imaging: T1w, T2w, FIESTA, and quantitative imaging: 2D cine phase contrast of the renal arteries, and parenchymal diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), magnetization transfer imaging (MTI), blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) imaging, and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). The normal controls were imaged on two separate occasions ≥24 h apart (range 24–210 h) to assess reproducibility of the measurements.

Results

Quantitative MR imaging sequences were found to be reproducible. The mean ± SD absolute percent difference between quantitative parameters measured ≥24 h apart were: MTI-derived ratio = 4.5 ± 3.6%, DWI-derived apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) = 6.5 ± 3.4%, BOLD-derived R2* = 7.4 ± 5.9%, and MRE-derived tissue stiffness = 7.6 ± 3.3%. Compared with controls, the ADPKD patient’s non-cystic renal parenchyma (NCRP) had statistically significant differences with regard to quantitative parenchymal measures: lower MTI percent ratios (16.3 ± 4.4 vs. 23.8 ± 1.2, p < 0.05), higher ADCs (2.46 ± 0.20 vs. 2.18 ± 0.10 × 10−3 mm2/s, p < 0.05), lower R2*s (14.9 ± 1.7 vs. 18.1 ± 1.6 s−1, p < 0.05), and lower tissue stiffness (3.2 ± 0.3 vs. 3.8 ± 0.5 kPa, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Excellent reproducibility of the quantitative measurements was obtained in all cases. Significantly different quantitative MR parenchymal measurement parameters between ADPKD patients and normal controls were obtained by MT, DWI, BOLD, and MRE indicating the potential for detecting and following renal disease at an earlier stage than the conventional qualitative imaging techniques.

Keywords

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease Magnetic resonance imaging Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging Segmentation Total kidney volume 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases under NIH Grant/Award Number P30 DK090728 “Mayo Translational PKD Center (MTPC),” Robert M. and Billie Kelley Pirnie, the PKD Foundation Grant 206g16a, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) under Grant/Award CA160045.

Conflict of interest

T.L.K. declares that he has no conflict of interest. M.E.E declares that she has no conflict of interest. I.G. declares that he has no conflict of interest. M.V.I. declares that she has no conflict of interest. P.K. declares that he has no conflict of interest. P.C.H. declares that he has no conflict of interest. B.F.K. declares that he has no conflict of interest. V.E.T. declares that he has no conflict of interest. S.K.V. declares that he has no conflict of interest. B.J.E. declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    National Center for Health Statistics, Summary Health Statistics Tables for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2014, Table A-4b, A-4c.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Center for Health Statistics, Deaths: Final Data for 2014, Tables 9, 10, 11.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith HW (1953) Compar physiology of the kidney. J Am Med Assoc 153:1512–1514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Myers GL, Miller WG, Coresh J, et al. (2006) Recommendations for improving serum creatinine measurement: a report from the laboratory working group of the National Kidney Disease Education Program. Clin Chem 52:5–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coresh J, Astor BC, McQuillan G, et al. (2002) Calibration and random variation of the serum creatinine assay as critical elements of using equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Am J Kidney Dis 39:920–929CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang JL, Morrell G, Rusinek H, et al. (2014) New magnetic resonance imaging methods in nephrology. Kidney Int 85:768–778CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kajander S, Kallio T, Alanen A, Komu M, Forsstrom J (2000) Imaging end-stage kidney disease in adults. Low-field MR imaging with magnetization transfer vs. ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 41:357–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebrahimi B, Macura SI, Knudsen BE, Grande JP, Lerman LO (2013) Fibrosis detection in renal artery stenosis mouse model using magnetization transfer MRI. Proc. SPIE 8672, Medical Imaging 2013: Biomedical Applications in Molecular, Structural, and Functional Imaging, 867205 8672:867Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kline TL, Irazabal MV, Ebrahimi B, et al. (2016) Utilizing magnetization transfer imaging to investigate tissue remodeling in a murine model of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Magn Reson Med 75:1466–1473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sourbron SP, Michaely HJ, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2008) MRI-measurement of perfusion and glomerular filtration in the human kidney with a separable compartment model. Investig Radiol 43:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li LP, Halter S, Prasad PV (2008) Blood oxygen level-dependent MR imaging of the kidneys. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 16:613–625CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pedersen M, Dissing TH, Morkenborg J, et al. (2005) Validation of quantitative BOLD MRI measurements in kidney: application to unilateral ureteral obstruction. Kidney Int 67:2305–2312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prasad PV, Edelman RR, Epstein FH (1996) Noninvasive evaluation of intrarenal oxygenation with BOLD MRI. Circulation 94:3271–3275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khatir DS, Pedersen M, Jespersen B, Buus NH (2014) Reproducibility of MRI renal artery blood flow and BOLD measurements in patients with chronic kidney disease and healthy controls. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:1091–1098CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    King BF, Torres VE, Brummer ME, et al. (2003) Magnetic resonance measurements of renal blood flow as a marker of disease severity in autosomal-dominant polycystic kidney disease. Kidney Int 64:2214–2221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torres VE, King BF, Chapman AB, et al. (2007) Magnetic resonance measurements of renal blood flow and disease progression in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2:112–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karger N, Biederer J, Lusse S, et al. (2000) Quantitation of renal perfusion using arterial spin labeling with FAIR-UFLARE. Magn Reson Imaging 18:641–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martirosian P, Boss A, Schraml C, et al. (2010) Magnetic resonance perfusion imaging without contrast media. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 37:S52–S64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Warner L, Yin M, Glaser KJ, et al. (2011) Noninvasive In vivo assessment of renal tissue elasticity during graded renal ischemia using MR elastography. Investig Radiol 46:509–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maril N, Margalit R, Mispelter J, Degani H (2004) Functional sodium magnetic resonance imaging of the intact rat kidney. Kidney Int 65:927–935CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Oyen RH, Peeters RR (2005) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of kidneys in healthy volunteers and patients with parenchymal diseases: initial experience. Radiology 235:911–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chandarana H, Lee VS, Hecht E, Taouli B, Sigmund EE (2011) Comparison of biexponential and monoexponential model of diffusion weighted imaging in evaluation of renal lesions: preliminary experience. Investig Radiol 46:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang F, Kopylov D, Zu Z, et al. (2015) Mapping murine diabetic kidney disease using chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI. Magn Reson Med 76(5):1531–1541CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kline TL, Edwards ME, Korfiatis P, et al. (2016) Semiautomated segmentation of polycystic kidneys in T2-weighted MR images. Am J Roentgenol 207:605–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Altman DG, Bland JM (1983) Measurement in medicine—the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sesso HD, Stampfer MJ, Rosner B, et al. (2000) Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, and mean arterial pressure as predictors of cardiovascular disease risk in men. Hypertension 36:801–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spiering W, Kroon AA, Fuss-Lejeune MM, Daemen MJ, de Leeuw PW (2000) Angiotensin II sensitivity is associated with the angiotensin II type 1 receptor A(1166)C polymorphism in essential hypertensives on a high sodium diet. Hypertension 36:411–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy L. Kline
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marie E. Edwards
    • 2
  • Ishan Garg
    • 1
  • Maria V. Irazabal
    • 2
  • Panagiotis Korfiatis
    • 1
  • Peter C. Harris
    • 2
  • Bernard F. King
    • 1
  • Vicente E. Torres
    • 2
  • Sudhakar K. Venkatesh
    • 1
  • Bradley J. Erickson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMayo Clinic College of MedicineRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Division of Nephrology and HypertensionMayo Clinic College of MedicineRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations