Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233645. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233645

Freewater estimatoR using iNtErpolated iniTialization (FERNET): Characterizing peritumoral edema using clinically feasible diffusion MRI data

Drew Parker 1,2,3, Abdol Aziz Ould Ismail 1,2,3, Ronald Wolf 3, Steven Brem 4, Simon Alexander 5, Wes Hodges 5, Ofer Pasternak 6, Emmanuel Caruyer 7, Ragini Verma 1,2,3,4,*
Editor: Pew-Thian Yap8
PMCID: PMC7259683  PMID: 32469944

Abstract

Characterization of healthy versus pathological tissue in the peritumoral area is confounded by the presence of edema, making free water estimation the key concern in modeling tissue microstructure. Most methods that model tissue microstructure are either based on advanced acquisition schemes not readily available in the clinic or are not designed to address the challenge of edema. This underscores the need for a robust free water elimination (FWE) method that estimates free water in pathological tissue but can be used with clinically prevalent single-shell diffusion tensor imaging data. FWE in single-shell data requires the fitting of a bi-compartment model, which is an ill-posed problem. Its solution requires optimization, which relies on an initialization step. We propose a novel initialization approach for FWE, FERNET, which improves the estimation of free water in edematous and infiltrated peritumoral regions, using single-shell diffusion MRI data. The method has been extensively investigated on simulated data and healthy dataset. Additionally, it has been applied to clinically acquired data from brain tumor patients to characterize the peritumoral region and improve tractography in it.

1. Introduction

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), one of the basic frameworks of diffusion MRI (dMRI), is frequently used in clinical studies to characterize tissue microstructure and provides orientation information for delineation of basic fiber tracts using tractography. DTI can be used to enrich radiomic markers of pathology and inform studies of connectivity in the brain, and is essential for neurosurgical and treatment planning of some brain tumors [1]. Since dMRI relies on the measurement of water displacement in tissue, it is confounded by disease processes that cause accumulation of water in the extra-cellular space, such as vasogenic edema, infiltrative edema or other parenchymal pathology (e.g. traumatic brain injury) which can alter the diffusion of water. These processes compromise the specificity of diffusion indices characterizing white matter, such as fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD), and subsequently tractography, leading to interpretation errors in clinical studies, including those tailored for surgical and treatment planning of brain tumors.

These issues can be alleviated by an accurate non-invasive estimation and compartmentalization of water (and its restriction by presence of pathology) in the brain by multi-compartment modeling of the diffusion data. Such modeling captures the healthy tissue as a compartment, and the contaminants (effects of disease) as one or more compartments. Multi-compartment modeling is able to alleviate partial volume effects and allows for more accurate diffusion indices, improved tractography, and provides novel contrasts such as volume fraction that capture underlying pathophysiological processes [2]. Although the importance of multi-compartment modeling has been recognized [37], most of these use multi-shell diffusion acquisitions, since the additional shells allow for more robust and accurate estimation of model parameters. Such acquisitions, however, remain clinically challenging at this time, owing to the length of scan being limited on a patient and inherent limitations of clinical scanners and surgical planning software

Single-shell DTI is the predominant type of diffusion MRI acquired in a busy clinical setting. Additionally, large cancer databases, such as the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC) (http://www.abtconsortium.org) have single-shell DTI data only. The ability to interrogate the peritumoral manifestation of free water in such large datasets, with their wealth of clinical data, including pharmacological and surgical treatment responses, quality of life measures, and survival rates, could be crucial in assessing neoplastic infiltration and edema and potentially provide new radiomic features for oncological evaluation. This highlights the need for free water estimation that is accurate in the presence of peritumoral edema, using clinically realistic acquisitions.

The fitting of a bi-compartment model to single-shell data is a mathematically ill-posed problem [8] with infinitely many solutions. The earliest attempts of fitting a bi-compartment model relied on multiple shells [9, 10]. Pasternak et al. [2] extended the model fit to single-shell acquisitions by positing that the problem could be addressed by an appropriate initialization of the model parameters and by a spatial regularizer that stabilizes the fit. This free water estimation allowed for a better reconstruction of healthy fornix tracts and enabled fiber tracking through edema. The application of this model has led to significant findings in various applications, including depression [11], Parkinson’s disease [1214] and schizophrenia [15]. The initialization, however, is affected by scanner inhomogeneity [16] and it underestimates the free water in healthy tissue while producing physiologically implausible diffusion indices in the peritumoral region [17]. It has also not been extensively validated in simulated and brain tumor data.

The overarching goal of this paper is to present a paradigm for free water elimination in peritumoral tissue using clinically acquired single-shell diffusion data. This is achieved by fitting a bi-compartment model, extending the work in [2] with a novel interpolated initialization designed to work optimally in edematous and healthy regions. The two compartments describe the underlying tissue and edema. This free water estimation paradigm will subsequently be referred to as FERNET (Freewater EstimatoR using iNtErpolated iniTialization). In this paper, FERNET is tested on simulated DTI data with varying free water fractions, anisotropy levels, and underlying diffusivities, and clinically acquired data of healthy controls and tumor patients with edema.

2. Methods

2.1. Overview

We describe a novel initialization approach, aiming to improve free-water estimation from clinically acquired single-shell data. We present comprehensive experiments on both simulated and real data, in both healthy tissue as well as in peritumoral regions, demonstrating the performance of our method compared to existing ones in both healthy and peritumoral tissue.

2.2. Freewater EstimatoR using iNtErpolated iniTialization (FERNET)

Following the bi-tensor approach suggested previously [2, 10], we model the diffusion signal in each voxel with two compartments: a tensor compartment representing the underlying tissue and an isotropic compartment with a fixed diffusivity equal to the diffusivity of free water in biological tissues. This is mathematically modeled as

Ai(D,f)=febqiTDqi+(1f)ebd (1)

where the first and second terms model the tissue and free water compartment, respectively, Ai is the signal attenuation of the diffusion weighted image acquired along the ith gradient direction, f is the tissue volume fraction, b is the magnitude of diffusion weighting, qi is ith gradient direction, D represents the diffusion tensor used for modeling the tissue compartment, and d is the diffusivity in the isotropic compartment, which is fixed at 3.0 x 10−3 mm2/s. Fitting this model using a single-shell dMRI acquisition is a problem with infinitely many solutions [2] Finding a solution to such a problem requires a combination of a good initialization and optimization. We use a novel initialization designed to address both healthy and pathological tissue followed by gradient descent to fit the model. Specifically, we propose the following initialization of the tissue volume fraction:

finit=fb=01α·fMDα (2)

finit is a logarithmic interpolation between two initialization strategies, one denoted as fb = 0 and the other as fMD.

The first strategy, fb = 0, is similar to that proposed in [2], based on scaling the mean unweighted image (S0) with respect to representative unweighted signals of WM (St) and CSF voxels (Sw):

fb=0=1log(S0St)log(SwSt) (3)

The resulting map fb = 0 is further constrained by estimates of the minimum and maximum tissue fraction corresponding to minimum and maximum expected eigenvalues (i.e., diffusivities) of a tensor modeling the brain tissue, given by

fmin=min(A^)ebdebλmaxebd,fmax=max(A^)ebdebλminebd (4)

where parameters λmin and λmax are set to 0.1x10-3 mm2/s and 2.5x10-3 mm2/s, respectively, and A^ is the vector of signal attenuation, i.e. the values of the diffusion weighted images divided by S0. It may be noted that these parameters represent a putative range of radial and axial diffusivity, respectively, in WM and were taken from [2].

There are two differences in our proposed estimation of fb = 0 from the previously reported method for free water elimination. First, we define St as the 5th percentile of the unweighted signal in a region of WM, and we define Sw as the 95th percentile of unweighted signal in a region of CSF. Previously, these values were defined as the mean unweighted signal within the two regions. Second, initial values outside the range [fmin, fmax] are set to the nearest of the two values. Previously, the estimated value was replaced with the value 12(fmin+fmax) in this situation.

The second strategy, fMD, in equation 2 is given by

fMD=ebMDebdebMDtissueebd (5)

where MD is the mean diffusivity from the standard tensor fit in a voxel of interest, and MDtissue is a fixed value (0.60x10-3 mm2/s [18, 19]) representing the expected MD of a WM voxel that is not impacted by partial voluming or pathology.

Finally, the value of α in Eq 2 is set to the value of fb = 0, but constrained to the range [0,1] rather than the range [fmin, fmax]. This results in an interpolation of the two strategies which depends on S0 in the voxel of interest. For example, in a WM voxel with normal appearing T2 signal, where the S0 is close to the value St, the value of α is nearly 1 and the result of this interpolation is closer to that using fMD. In regions that appear like CSF in the T2 contrast, the value of α is nearly 0 and the result is closer to fb = 0. In voxels with intermediate T2 intensity, which include vasogenic edema, the peritumoral region, and voxels with partial volume of CSF, this interpolation is closer to the geometric mean of the two approaches. In this way, our initialization is designed to smoothly modulate its behavior based on the signal properties of the voxels without relying on any segmentation beyond the selection of representative CSF and WM regions.

As the proposed method depends on the S0 in each voxel, any bias in that image resulting from inhomogeneous magnetic field in the scanner will likely lead to a biased finit (as well as a biased fb = 0). Therefore, we propose the use of bias-field-corrected maps of S0 for free water elimination problems.

In summary, our interpolated initialization method (FERNET) differs from the approach in [2], which we subsequently call “b0 initialization”, in three key aspects:

  • A novel initialization strategy that aims to improve the estimation of the free water compartment in both healthy and pathological tissue.

  • Bias field correction of S0 before initialization.

  • The initial fraction values outside of the plausible range are replaced with the nearest plausible value rather than the mean before optimization.

2.3. Human datasets

This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of the University of Pennsylvania. The following datasets will be used in the different experiments. Written informed consent was obtained from each of the participants in the studies.

Dataset 1

30 participants were selected from an ongoing tumor study, including 21 healthy controls, and 9 patients with a diagnosis of glioblastoma. All participants underwent a multi-shell diffusion acquisition with b-values of 300 (15 directions), 800 (30 directions), and 2000 s/mm2 (64 directions) and 9 unweighted volumes. The data were acquired using a Siemens 3T TIM Trio scanner with a 32-channel head coil and echo planar (EP) sequence with TR = 5216 ms, TE = 100 ms, at a spatial resolution of 2 x 2 x 2 mm. T1, T2, FLAIR, and T1 contrast-enhanced (T1CE) scans were also acquired for the 9 brain tumor patients.

Dataset 2

This dataset comprised 216 healthy controls from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC) [20]. The age range of these selected subjects was 18 to 23 years. There were 118 females and 98 males. The data were acquired on a 3T Siemens TIM Trio scanner, using a 32-channel head coil and a twice-refocused spin-echo (TRSE) single-shot EPI sequence with TR = 8100 ms and TE = 82 ms, at a b-value of 1000 s/mm2 for a total 64 weighted diffusion images and seven unweighted images. The acquired spatial resolution was 1.875 x 1.875 x 2 mm.

Dataset 3

This dataset comprised 143 brain tumor patients (89 glioblastoma/54 metastasis), putatively representing a range of levels of tumor cell infiltration and extent of edema. The age range of this data was 19 to 87 years and there were 77 females and 66 males. Single-shell diffusion data were acquired on Siemens 3T Verio scanner with TR = 5000ms and TE = 5000/86ms, 3 unweighted volumes, and 30 diffusion weighted volumes at a b-value of 1000 s/mm2. The acquired spatial resolution was 1.72 x 1.72 x 3 mm. Additionally, T1, T2, FLAIR, and T1CE were acquired.

Data preprocessing

All datasets were investigated visually for quality assurance (QA). The datasets were denoised [21] and corrected for eddy current-induced distortions [22]. In Dataset 3, voxels were resampled to 2mm isotropic resolution. The b0 images were extracted and skull-stripped using FSL’s BET tool [23]. Bias correction of the b0 images was performed with N4BiasFieldCorrection from the Advanced Normalization Tools (ANTs) package. A DTI model was fit within the brain mask using a weighted linear least-squares method. FA and MD maps of healthy controls in Dataset 1 and Dataset 2 were non-linearly registered to the JHU-MNI-ss (“Eve”) atlas [24] using the SyN registration algorithm from the ANTs package. Automatic tumor and peritumoral region segmentation was obtained in the patients from Dataset 1 and Dataset 3 using GLISTR [25], after co-registering the T1, T2, FLAIR and T1CE images using FSL’s flirt tool.

2.4. Experiments on simulated data

To address the lack of ground truth, especially in edematous and infiltrated regions, we simulated data with varying ground truth mean diffusivities, anisotropies, and free water volume fractions. These simulated datasets follow a bi-compartment model where one of the compartments represents tissue and the other is isotropic with a fixed diffusivity (3.0 x 10−3 mm2/s). The simulation of the weighted images was obtained using the bi-tensor model available in Dipy’s multi-tensor simulator [26]. For simulating an unweighted (b0) image, S0, we calculated the transverse magnetization of a spin-echo experiment as a linear sum of the contribution of each compartment as proposed in Phantomαs [27]:

S0=fWMρWM(1eTRT1WM)eTET2WM+fCSFρCSF(1eTRT1CSF)eTET2CSF (6)

where fWM is the volume fraction of white matter, fCSF is the volume fraction of CSF, ρ is the proton density, and TR/TE are repetition and echo times. The first term of Eq 6 represents the signal from WM, while the second term represents the signal from CSF. Although values of ρ, T1 and T2 of the two tissue types are not known a priori, they do not change when volume fraction is varied. Thus, we simulated b0 for each voxel as:

S0=fS0WM+(1f)S0CSF (7)

where f is the desired volume fraction of tissue, and S0WM and S0CSF are reference values taken from human data. The diffusion signal, Si, for the ith gradient direction is simulated as:

Si=S0(fAtissue+(1f)Awater) (8)

where Atissue and Awater represent the attenuation of tissue and water, respectively. Thus, this model can simulate white matter tissue with ground truth diffusion tensor eigenvalues and any degree of additional free water.

Using this synthetic data model, we devised three simulations based on human diffusion MRI data: two from the WM of healthy controls to represent healthy WM tissue, and one derived from a tumor dataset to represent tumor cell infiltration. Various values of volume fraction were then added to these simulations to represent a range of edema. To obtain representative diffusion MRI measurements of healthy WM, 21 healthy controls of Dataset 1 were registered to the JHU-MNI-SS template, where the maps of their three tensor eigenvalues and B0 images were averaged. Masks of WM and CSF were created in the template space via segmentation of the template T1 image, and eroded by 1 voxel each to eliminate partial voluming between tissue types. Mean values of B0 signal intensity and the three eigenvalues were calculated within these masks, resulting in an FA of 0.5 and MD of 7.7x10-4 mm2/s. These values, along with a ground truth VF of 0, formed the basis of the first simulation of healthy WM (Fig 1A), to which simulated volume fraction was added to represent edema. In a second scenario, healthy WM could be considered to have some unknown level of extracellular water, and thus the measured eigenvalues likely do not correspond to a VF of exactly 0. In order to model this scenario, a simulation of healthy WM was created where we assigned the measured eigenvalues to an arbitrary non-zero VF of 0.15 and extrapolated to a VF of 0 following Eq 8. The resulting FA was 0.6 and MD was 6.0x10-4 mm2/s, forming the basis of the second simulation of healthy WM (Fig 1B). Third, to form a synthetic representation of tumor cell infiltration and extracellular edema, a tumor patient from Dataset 1 was selected and a mask of restricted diffusion (due to increased cellularity in the tumor) was hand-drawn on the MD image (Fig 1C). The measured average FA was 0.1 and MD was 5.5x10-4 mm2/s. In each simulated scenario, we added a free water compartment with ten levels of volume fraction from 0 to 0.9 to represent edema, and ten levels of Rician noise (signal to noise ratio (SNR) of 10 to 100), realizing 100 simulations per noise level. In addition, for every simulated tensor, we rotated the tensor directions randomly 100 times. Thus, there were 1,000,000 simulated tensors and free water compartments for each of the three simulations. Free water estimation error was computed in each simulation as the difference between ground-truth free water and estimated free water. The estimation errors of FERNET and b0 initialization were compared.

Fig 1. Free water estimation on simulated data.

Fig 1

The error in free water estimation using simulated data with varying ground truth volume fraction is presented using violin plots. A) Eigenvalues averaged across WM voxels of 21 healthy controls were used to generate synthetic diffusion data with volume fraction of 0. Average MD was 7.7x10-4 and average FA was 0.5. Synthetic free water representing vasogenic edema was added to this baseline. The masks of WM (red) and CSF (blue) used to calculate these values in 21 healthy controls are shown to the right. B) Healthy WM in human data has some unknown, but non-zero, free water fraction. Average values from (A) were assigned to a VF value of 0.15 and extrapolated to find new values of MD and FA which correspond to a VF of 0. MD in this scenario was 6.0x10-4 and FA was 0.6. C) Eigenvalues were averaged across the voxels of one tumor patient within the region of restricted diffusion in the tumor (shown in red to the right). The average FA was 0.1 and MD was 5.5x10-4. These were used to generate synthetic diffusion data with VF of 0, and synthetic free water was added to this baseline. Experiments A-C have an SNR of 20, with free water varying from 0 to 0.9. The y-axis represents the difference between the free water estimation and the corresponding ground truth of free water (x-axis). Green dotted lines in each plot represent the zero error in free water estimation. Violin plots of the two methods are staggered for clarity. Results show that FERNET initialization is more accurate in estimating free water than the b0 initialization where FW>0.3, and FERNET initialization does not have discontinuities in predicted free water volume fraction. D)shows the effect of SNR on the error in free water, where SNR varies from 10 to 100. The plotted results are from the simulated data used in (A) with VF = 0.4. SNR has an effect on the variance of error in free water, as well as a small effect on the mean error in free water.

2.5. Experiments on human data

2.5.1. Comparison of single-shell and multi-shell free water estimations

Since ground truth values of the free water volume fraction in human data are not available, we estimated free water volume fraction through a multi-shell method [28] applied to all the shells available in Dataset 1, to use as a reference standard. This is based on the assumption that multi-shell acquisitions provide a better estimation of free water. This method was chosen because it produces two compartments just like our method but uses multi-shell data to alleviate the issues with single-shell. We extracted the b = 800 s/mm2 shell to obtain single-shell data on which the two initialization approaches for free water estimation were applied. Two analyses were performed. First, the single-shell methods were compared to the reference standard by calculating voxel-wise correlation coefficient and mean square error, using the 21 healthy controls co-registered to the same atlas. The second analysis was performed in the peritumoral regions of the 9 tumor patients to compare the estimated free water of the two single-shell approaches against the reference standard.

2.5.2. The effect of regularization on free water estimation.

In order to demonstrate that our proposed initialization alleviates the dependence on regularization, we compared the histogram of the free water values in the whole brain as well as in the peritumoral region with and without the use of regularization for the two initialization approaches in a tumor patient from Dataset 3. The regularization was implemented using an in-house MATLAB tool.

2.5.3. The effect of bias field correction and constraints on free water estimation

As shown in Eq 3, the initialization depends on representative b0 signals in both tissue and free water compartments as well as the b0 signal itself. We applied a bias field correction [29] on the b0 image, and compared results of free water estimation with and without the application of bias correction. Analysis was performed using co-registered data from Dataset 2. At every voxel, the percentage of controls with artifactual initial estimates of the free water corrected tensor, defined as MD < 0.40x10-3 mm2/s [30], was calculated.

2.5.4. Free water estimation in brain tumor data

We selected two tumor patients from Dataset 3: Patient 1 with a metastatic tumor and Patient 2 with glioblastoma. These represent case studies for investigating the results of the two approaches. The b0 initialization method was performed with spatial regularization, while FERNET was not. We visually compared the free water and corrected FA of the peritumoral region to healthy tissue in the contralateral hemisphere.

2.5.5. Tractography

Tractography was performed on Dataset 3 (143 brain tumor patients) using Diffusion Toolkit [31], on tensor images calculated with and without FERNET free water elimination. Tensors calculated without free water elimination are referred to as the “standard” tensor fit. The second order Runge-Kutta algorithm was used for tracking, with an angle threshold of 45ο, a step size of 1 mm, and an FA threshold of 0.2. Five bundles of interest (corticospinal tract, inferior longitudinal, inferior fronto-occipital, uncinate and arcuate fasciculi) in each hemisphere were extracted from each tractogram, using the RecoBundles algorithm [32], with a pruning parameter of 7 mm. Finally, the “edema coverage”, defined as the percentage of voxels in the peritumoral edema region containing one or more streamlines belonging to any of the ten bundles of interest, was computed for every patient with and without free water elimination. A percentage difference was calculated relative to the edema coverage of the tractography without free water elimination.

3. Results

3.1. Free water estimation on simulated data

Fig 1 presents the results of comparing free water estimation on three simulations detailed in Section 2.4: healthy WM, with added levels of free water (representing edema) (Fig 1A), an extrapolated scenario of healthy WM containing some free water (Fig 1B), and a region of restricted diffusion with varying degrees of edema from one tumor patient (Fig 1C). Our findings show that in the presence of simulated edema (FW>0.3), FERNET improved the estimation of the free water across the three scenarios (Fig 1). The FERNET estimation had a similar variance to the b0 initialization at low values of ground truth VF, but did not display the heavily skewed distribution of errors of the b0 initialization method, as shown by the spread in the violin plots, especially at higher values of ground truth VF. The FERNET estimation did not show signs of a bimodal distribution in errors. These experiments were performed at a simulated SNR of 20. Fig 1D shows the distribution of errors for the simulated healthy WM at a ground truth VF of 0.4 as SNR was varied from 10 to 100. The mean bias of both estimates changed slightly from SNR = 10 to SNR = 30, after which the variance in error diminished with increasing SNR. The b0 initialization method demonstrated a skewed distribution of errors at every noise level.

3.2. Free water estimation on human data

Fig 2 shows the results of comparing the free water estimation using FERNET and the b0 initialization with the free water estimation obtained from the multi-shell method used as a reference standard in the absence of ground truth, as detailed in Section 2.5. Voxel-wise maps of correlation coefficient and mean square error (MSE) of the free water fraction between single-shell methods and the multi-shell method (Fig 2A for the b0 initialization, Fig 2B for the interpolated initialization of FERNET) showed a weaker correlation between the free water maps, especially in WM regions, and a relatively higher MSE in the b0 initialization when compared to FERNET. These correlation findings were consistent with Fig 2C, where the free water values in WM of 21 healthy controls using FERNET were more aligned with the identity line when compared to the multi-shell reference standard. The correlation between b0 initialization and multi-shell estimation was 0.59, and the correlation between FERNET and multi-shell estimation was 0.81. The correlation of free water values in the peritumoral regions of 9 patients (Fig 2D) between the b0 initialization and the reference standard was 0.60, and between FERNET and the reference standard was 0.75.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Free water estimation in human data compared to the multi-shell reference standard correlation coefficient and mean square error (MSE) are measured at every voxel for 21 healthy controls to assess the contrast and difference between the free water (FW) map derived from A) b0 initialization and B) interpolated initialization (FERNET) compared to the FW map derived from multi-shell. Correlations are displayed with a blue-green-red colormap where blue is -1, green is 0 and red is 1. More red voxels indicate a stronger agreement with the reference standard. MSE are displayed with a colormap from white to dark red. Lighter voxels indicate a stronger agreement with the reference standard. C) shows the scatterplots of free water fraction values within the WM of 21 controls, demonstrating that the proposed interpolated initialization is more aligned with the reference standard in WM. D) shows the scatterplots of free water fraction in the peritumoral regions of 9 brain tumor patients, demonstrating that neither of the single-shell methods obtained an estimation in the peritumoral region that is perfectly consistent with reference standard. However, correlations are higher with FERNET (r = 0.75) than with b0 initialization (r = 0.60).

3.3. The effect of regularization on free water estimation

Fig 3 shows the behavior of the free water estimation approaches to regularization in two brain tumor patients. The effect of regularization is assessed via the difference maps of the free water volume fraction obtained with and without regularization, in the peritumoral area and the whole brain. The histograms of the free water estimation in the whole brain and in the peritumoral region show a closely matched free water estimation for regularized and non-regularized approaches when using FERNET.

Fig 3. Effect of regularization in the optimization phase after FERNET and b0 initialization in a tumor patient.

Fig 3

A and B show the difference images of free water volume fraction between regularized and non-regularized fits of the b0 initialization method and FERNET, respectively. Histograms of free water volume fraction in the whole brain with and without regularization using b0 initialization differ greatly (C), while the histograms of free water using FERNET closely match (D). Histograms in E and F demonstrate a similar effect when limited to the peritumoral region.

3.4. Effect of bias field correction

Fig 4 shows the results of investigating the use of bias field correction in free water elimination. It shows the percentage of participants that yielded an artifactual fit (MD<0.40x10-3 mm2/s) in the initial corrected tensor (before the optimization phase) at each voxel in the brain, without (Fig 4A) and with (Fig 4B) bias field correction. Without bias field correction, the corrected tissue tensor is initialized with indices that are physiologically implausible. Such diffusivity values are estimated in a large percentage of controls in the peripheral regions of the cortex and cerebellum, areas which are most impacted by bias.

Fig 4. Effect of bias field correction on corrected diffusion indices and free water volume fraction.

Fig 4

Evaluation of interpolated initialization on a large dataset (Dataset 2) of healthy controls showed that A) data without bias field correction produced more physiologically implausible voxels (defined as corrected MD < 0.4x10-3 mm2/s) than data with bias field correction (B), especially in GM regions and in the cerebellum, which are the areas impacted most by bias. The color bar represents the percentage of controls with physiologically implausible fits. Voxels with 0% of implausible fits are not plotted with color, so that the underlay template T1 image can be seen.

3.5. Free water elimination in brain tumor data

Fig 5 shows the free water volume fraction and the corrected FA maps using the two free water estimation methods on two brain tumor patients: Patient 1 with metastatic tumor and Patient 2 with glioblastoma. FERNET free water maps had spatially smoother contrast than those from the b0 initialization, and FA values in the WM ipsilateral to the tumor matched the FA of the contralateral WM better, especially in Patient 1.

Fig 5. Comparison of free water estimation and corrected FA maps between the two initialization methods in two brain tumor patients.

Fig 5

Patient 1 is a metastatic brain tumor patient and Patient 2 is a glioblastoma patient. Corrected FA maps obtained with FERNET (B, E) show better agreement between the peritumoral region and the contralateral WM compared to b0 initialization (A, D). Free water volume fraction maps obtained with FERNET are spatially smoother in the peritumoral region. This is likely due to the change in heuristics when the initial map is outside of the range of [fmin, fmax]. Free water volume fraction maps of FERNET more closely resemble the hyperintense region of the FLAIR maps (C, F) in the same patients at approximately the same location.

3.6. Tractography

Fig 6 shows the effect on tractography as a result of free water elimination in a large dataset of 143 brain tumor patients (Dataset 2). Fig 6A is an example case, showing a comparison of the arcuate fasciculus between standard tensor-based tracking and FERNET-based tracking. In extending this tractography to all the patients, we found that the tractography based on FERNET covered more of the peritumoral region than tractography using the standard tensor fit. This is depicted in Fig 6B by a histogram of percent difference in coverage of the edematous region by tracts. In a majority of patients, the percent difference in edema coverage was positive, indicating that tractography on free-water-corrected tensor maps traveled through a larger portion of the peritumoral region.

Fig 6. Fiber tractography with and without free water elimination using FERNET and RecoBundles tract clustering.

Fig 6

A) Tractography of the arcuate fasciculus in one example brain tumor patient demonstrates the improvement in tracking inside the peritumoral region using free water elimination. Using standard tensor fit based tracking, streamlines appear to stop prematurely when they reach voxels affected by the accumulation of free water in the peritumoral region. The overlap of both approaches is shown, highlighting the improvement observed with FERNET. B) Tractography and reconstruction of ten major tracts using RecoBundles in 143 tumor patients showed an increase in the volume of the peritumoral region traversed by streamlines, as shown in a histogram of percent difference (relative to standard tensor-based tractography) in edema coverage. The findings demonstrate that most patients exhibit an increase in the extent of the peritumoral region covered by recognizable tracks when free water elimination is employed.

4. Discussion

We have introduced a novel initialization strategy, FERNET, for free water estimation in single-shell clinically feasible diffusion MRI, aimed at improving the characterization of peritumoral edema. The efficacy and wide applicability of our method in estimating free water volume fraction has been demonstrated comprehensively both on simulated data representing varying levels of edema and underlying tissue with and without infiltration, as well as datasets of healthy controls and patients with diverse types of brain tumors. We show that the novel strategy improves the accuracy of free water estimation for peritumoral regions. We demonstrate its applicability to different acquisitions, especially clinically feasible DTI data, underlining the widespread generalizability of our method as compared to other multicompartment modeling methods, some of which require specific acquisitions infeasible in the clinic.

Most free water elimination methods to date have been designed for healthy tissue. Developing a method for a pathology, like brain tumors, is challenging due to the absence of ground truth. We addressed this problem by generating simulated data representing edema using different ground truth diffusivities, anisotropies, and free water volume fractions, and tested our proposed interpolated initialization against the existing b0 initialization method. Fig 1 highlights the significant impact of the initialization strategy on the free water estimation using three simulated clinically relevant scenarios. The findings show that the proposed initialization strategy yields improved free water estimation, both in healthy tissue as well as tumor tissue with restricted diffusivity, that were affected by simulated “edema”. Also, we showed that FERNET’s interpolation approach provides a robust estimation that is less susceptible to noise. Although, as expected, the free water estimation became increasingly robust as SNR increased, the effect of SNR on the mean of free water estimation was negligible beyond an SNR of 20.

The success of FERNET in simulated scenarios motivated its application to human data (Fig 2). However, ground truth in human data is impossible to ascertain in vivo, especially when tissue is contaminated with edema. While there are several estimation paradigms, we used the free water estimated by Hoy et al. [28] as a reference standard. The estimation in this method relies on multi-shell data and claims to have a closed form solution to a problem that is ill-posed when attempted using single-shell data. The voxel-wise correlation and MSE maps show that FERNET based free water maps are more similar in signal contrast to the reference standard, and correlate better with the free water estimation of this advanced method compared to b0 initialization. This increased agreement of FERNET, suggests its superiority in the peritumoral region and also in healthy tissue. There are other multi-shell modeling methods available which can estimate fraction of various compartments, such as NODDI [33]. NODDI is a complex multi-compartment model which includes an isotropic free water compartment, an extracellular hindered diffusion compartment, and an intracellular compartment with a fixed diffusivity. This model relies on a number of a priori fixed parameters based on healthy data and a specific diffusion sequence. Hence, we determined that it would not be an ideal method to compare against, opting instead for the Hoy et al [28] method, which models the same two compartments as FERNET with multi-shell data.

As free water elimination using single-shell DTI is an ill-posed problem, several implementation choices are needed with every free water elimination approach. Previous approaches (Pasternak et al. 2009) have emphasized the importance of regularization. FERNET initialization has been shown (Fig 3) to be less sensitive to regularization, implying that FERNET yields a solution that varies smoothly across neighboring voxels. On the other hand, the estimation using b0 initialization appears to be more influenced by regularization, with most impacted regions in healthy-appearing GM and the boundaries of the peritumoral region. This effect is further highlighted by the histograms of free water fraction with and without regularization. This is likely driven by the heuristic choice to replace initial estimates outside the range [fmin, fmax] with the mean of those two values. Such a choice imposes a drastic difference between a voxel just within that range and a neighboring voxel which falls out of that range.

The importance of such implementation choices is emphasized in the FERNET paradigm, firstly, by our choice to perform bias field correction of the data. This reduced the prevalence of implausible diffusivity values in a large set of healthy controls, which were defined as having MD less than 0.4x10-3 mm2/s, a value that is well below most estimates of the MD of healthy brain tissue. This finding suggests that, in the presence of magnetic field inhomogeneity in the scanner, the preprocessing of diffusion data may play a significant role in modeling the diffusion signal with this bi-compartment model, and it must be approached carefully. The second crucial implementation decision was to constrain the initial volume fraction estimate to the boundaries ([fmin, fmax]) and scaling the b0 image by the 5th and 95th percentile of the unweighted signals of WM and CSF. This resulted in FERNET producing a contrast in the volume fraction map that was more consistent with that obtained from FLAIR images, as compared to that produced by the b0 initialization. FLAIR is the clinical modality of choice to draw inferences about the peritumoral region, because in FLAIR images the inversion time is carefully chosen to null the signal from the CSF while increasing the signal intensity in edema and areas of inflammation with increased partial voluming of fluid. This suggests that the free water maps obtained with FERNET may have clinical relevance in locating and characterizing lesions and areas of inflammation such as in the tumor microenvironment, inflammatory plaques of multiple sclerosis, or inflammation associated with traumatic brain injury. Some subtle yet important characteristics of FERNET-based characterization are that it can be applied a dataset without needing registration to a template, or any tumor or edema segmentation.

The clinical significance of FERNET is underscored by examining the free water volume fraction maps in different types of brain tumors that may have varying degrees of edema. The findings in the peritumoral region of two brain tumor patients (Fig 5), one with a metastatic tumor and one with a diagnosis of glioblastoma, showed that the interpolated initialization allowed for reconstructing FA in the region of WM ipsilateral to the tumor, despite the presence of edema. The b0 initialization based free water estimation struggled significantly, especially in the case of metastatic brain tumor. Thus, FERNET is generalizable to peritumoral regions with different tumor types.

Finally, tractography to delineate eloquent fiber tracts has important clinical implications for the surgical treatment of malignant brain tumors [34]. Although no current fiber tractography method is completely devoid of limitations, their tract delineation capabilities make them a valuable tool for neurosurgeons [35, 36]. However, the standard tensor fit does not account for any free water, and the presence of edema leads to erroneous estimations of diffusion indices, most notably FA. This may cause some tracking algorithms to stop prematurely (Fig 6) in edematous regions, leading to spuriously distorted and/or interrupted tracts [37]. Although this is more pronounced in the presence of edema, it is important to note that even in the absence of pathology, cerebrospinal fluid partial voluming affects the reconstruction of WM tracts such as the fornix, potentially resulting in misleading inferences about brain connectivity.

The improved free water estimation that our initialization provides leads to a better modeling of brain tissue. Hence, the elimination of the confounding free water in the diffusion signal, whether it is due to partial voluming or pathology, results in better tractography than the standard single tensor model can provide. This impact on tractography was evident in the peritumoral regions of brain tumor patients with gliomas and metastases. Irrespective of the type of edema, tractography using tensors obtained from FERNET-based free water estimation was much improved, as compared to a standard tensor fit, in terms of the increase in edema coverage by the tracts after free water elimination.

There is a growing evidence that the objective of “maximal safe resection” [38, 39] is best achieved with detailed mapping of the brain tumor and surrounding white matter tracts. This emphasizes the importance of free water elimination for tractography, paving the way for robust surgical planning, and superior tracking intraoperatively [40]. FERNET provides a method that can possibly enhance clinical outcomes, due to the improvement in tractography, which is expected to have a large impact on a broad spectrum of applications that use dMRI, including neurosurgical planning [41, 42], assessing connectivity changes in pathologies traumatic brain injury [43], and stroke [44].

Limitations

Due to the absence of the ground truth values in human data, this study relies in part on simulations derived from human diffusion data, which lack a ground truth. Simulated data representing healthy white matter was created from average values of healthy controls in WM. The ground truth free water VF of these voxels, as measured, is not known. Thus, two simulations of healthy WM were performed, representing a range of possible values. Similarly, using tumor data from one patient may not be representative of the vast heterogeneity of tumors. However, in the absence of biopsies in healthy and peritumoral tissue, these constitute exemplar scenarios over a spectrum of healthy to diseased to demonstrate FERNET’s applicability. The single tensor fit of FERNET cannot distinguish between isotropic and anisotropic diffusion with high orientation dispersion, which may occur in the context of cancer, for which a multi-shell acquisition and advanced modeling would be required. Also, since it is a tensor-based model, tractography is inherently limited in the crossing fiber regions. We used deterministic tractography for evaluation, as that is used in surgical planning software, and probabilistic tractography does not perform well on tensors. However, the observed improvement in tractography in the peritumoral region, even with clinically acquired data where higher order diffusion models cannot be fitted, highlights the utility of FERNET. Finally, we since the initialization of our method performs better with bias correction of the B0 image, it relies on the bias correction tools to correct issues with diffusion data, such as susceptibility artifacts in the fronto-orbital region, or signal drop-out issues caused by image distortion. We have used the tool that is the state of the art, however, alternate approaches may also be used.

5. Conclusion & future work

We have designed a free water estimation paradigm based on a novel initialization approach, FERNET, that can be applied to single-shell diffusion acquisitions, readily available in the clinic. The initialization approach, which interpolates diffusivity and T2 information (b0), improves free water estimation in edematous peritumoral tissue, as well as healthy tissue, compared to traditional approaches. This is a significant contribution because it can be applied to prospective and retrospective clinical studies.

FERNET initialization for free water estimation has a myriad of potential applications in the field of diffusion MRI, especially in pathologies that provoke an increased free water, like tumors and traumatic brain injury. As it is designed to work with clinically feasible single-shell diffusion data, it can be used to improve tractography in retrospective studies using archival data, as shown by the improvement in tractography in a cohort of brain tumor patients. A comprehensive investigation of different tractography algorithms, both deterministic and probabilistic, and on more complex diffusion models in single-shell and multi-shell data, is beyond the scope of this manuscript and will be investigated in the future. The free water volume fraction map delivers valuable information about the free water content of brain tissue in the presence of pathology. This may be used in the future to help distinguish different types of brain tumors and their genetic underpinnings based on the nature of the peritumoral tissue, paving the way for better radiomic markers of cancer.

The applicability of FERNET in clinically feasible acquisitions is expected to facilitate investigations of large tumor datasets like ABTC (http://www.abtconsortium.org) that have single shell acquisitions. The tractography tested here was based on single fiber estimation, and approaches with more complicated fiber models may assist in simultaneously resolving partial volume and complex fiber architecture in the context of peritumoral regions. Finally, an interesting application of this method can be in improved estimation of structural connectomes in the presence of edema, as the estimation of structural connections in the brain is expected to improve with a better estimation of the underlying tissue compartment after mitigating the effects of partial voluming and/or pathology. These avenues will be explored in future studies.

Data Availability

We have uploaded the data set necessary to replicate our study findings. The healthy controls used in the paper are part of the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort dataset which is available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/gap/cgi-bin/study.cgi?study_id=phs000607.v3.p2. The healthy controls from Dataset 1 and simulated data can be found at https://github.com/DiCIPHRLab/ Fernet/tree/paper_data. The brain tumor data in the paper is restricted. It requires an agreement with Penn, and can only be released once the said had been executed. The contact person for that isRagini Verma, ragini@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants R01NS096606 (PI: Ragini Verma) and R01MH108574 (PI: Ofer Pasternak), and research grant from Synaptive Medical 30071788 (PI: Ragini Verma). Synaptive Medical provided support in the form of percent effort towards salaries for authors [RV, DP, AAOI]. They were involved in design of experiments, planning analysis, and application to brain tumor data. They contributed to writing of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Tunc B, Ingalhalikar M, Parker D, Lecoeur J, Singh N, Wolf RL, et al. Individualized Map of White Matter Pathways: Connectivity-Based Paradigm for Neurosurgical Planning. Neurosurgery. 2016. December 16;79(4):568–77. 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001183 . Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4911597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pasternak O, Sochen N, Gur Y, Intrator N, Assaf Y. Free water elimination and mapping from diffusion MRI. Magnetic resonance in medicine: official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine / Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2009;62:717–30. 10.1002/mrm.22055 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Szczepankiewicz F, Lasič S, van Westen D, Sundgren PC, Englund E, Westin C-F, et al. Quantification of microscopic diffusion anisotropy disentangles effects of orientation dispersion from microstructure: applications in healthy volunteers and in brain tumors. NeuroImage. 2015;104:241–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tabesh A, Jensen JH, Ardekani BA, Helpern JA. Estimation of tensors and tensor-derived measures in diffusional kurtosis imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2010. October 28 . Epub 2010/10/30. Eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhang J, Jones MV, McMahon MT, Mori S, Calabresi PA. In vivo and ex vivo diffusion tensor imaging of cuprizone-induced demyelination in the mouse corpus callosum. Magn Reson Med. 2012. March;67(3):750–9. 10.1002/mrm.23032 . Pubmed Central PMCID: 3170659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Scherrer B, Schwartzman A, Taquet M, Prabhu SP, Sahin M, Akhondi-Asl A, et al. Characterizing the distribution of anisotropic micro-structural environments with diffusion-weighted imaging (DIAMOND). Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention: MICCAI International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. 2013;16:518–26. 10.1007/978-3-642-40760-4_65 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Novikov DS, Kiselev VG, Jespersen SN. On modeling. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2018;79(6):3172–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Scherrer B, Warfield SK. Why multiple b-values are required for multi-tensor models. Evaluation with a constrained log-Euclidean model. Proc IEEE Int Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro Symp. 2010:1389–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Alexander DC, Pierpaoli C, Basser PJ, Gee JC. Spatial transformations of diffusion tensor magnetic resonance images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001. November;20(11):1131–9. 10.1109/42.963816 . eng. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pierpaoli C, Jones D, editors. Removing CSF contamination in brain DT-MRIs by using a two-compartment tensor model. International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Meeting; 2004.
  • 11.Bergamino M, Pasternak O, Farmer M, Shenton ME, Hamilton JP. Applying a free-water correction to diffusion imaging data uncovers stress-related neural pathology in depression. NeuroImage: Clinical. 2016;10:336–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ofori E, Pasternak O, Planetta PJ, Li H, Burciu RG, Snyder AF, et al. Longitudinal changes in free-water within the substantia nigra of Parkinson’s disease. Brain. 2015;138(8):2322–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Planetta PJ, Ofori E, Pasternak O, Burciu RG, Shukla P, DeSimone JC, et al. Free-water imaging in Parkinson’s disease and atypical parkinsonism. Brain. 2015;139(2):495–508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Burciu RG, Ofori E, Shukla P, Pasternak O, Chung JW, McFarland NR, et al. Free‐water and BOLD imaging changes in Parkinson's disease patients chronically treated with a MAO‐B inhibitor. Human brain mapping. 2016;37(8):2894–903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Oestreich LK, Lyall AE, Pasternak O, Kikinis Z, Newell DT, Savadjiev P, et al. Characterizing white matter changes in chronic schizophrenia: A free-water imaging multi-site study. Schizophrenia research. 2017;189:153–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Parker D, A OI, S A, R V, editors. The Role of Bias Field Correction in the Free Water Elimination Problem"\. ISMRM; 2018; Montreal, Canada
  • 17.Ould-Ismail AA, Parker D, Hernandez-Fernandez M, Brem S, Alexander S, Pasternak O, et al., editors. Characterizing Peritumoral Tissue Using Free Water Elimination in Clinical DTI. MICCAI; 2018; Granada, Spain: Brainlesion Workshop, to appear.
  • 18.Hoy AR, Kecskemeti SR, Alexander AL. Free water elimination diffusion tractography: A comparison with conventional and fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery, diffusion tensor imaging acquisitions. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2015;42(6):1572–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kodiweera C, Wu Y-C. Data of NODDI diffusion metrics in the brain and computer simulation of hybrid diffusion imaging (HYDI) acquisition scheme. Data in brief. 2016;7:1131–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Satterthwaite TD, Wolf DH, Calkins ME, Vandekar SN, Erus G, Ruparel K, et al. Structural Brain Abnormalities in Youth With Psychosis Spectrum Symptoms. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016. March 16 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.3463 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Manjon JV, Coupe P, Concha L, Buades A, Collins DL, Robles M. Diffusion weighted image denoising using overcomplete local PCA. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e73021 10.1371/journal.pone.0073021 . Pubmed Central PMCID: 3760829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Andersson JLR, Sotiropoulos SN. An integrated approach to correction for off-resonance effects and subject movement in diffusion MR imaging. Neuroimage. 2016. January 15;125:1063–78. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.019 . Pubmed Central PMCID: 4692656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Smith SM. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002. November;17(3):143–55. 10.1002/hbm.10062 . Epub 2002/10/23. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Oishi K, Faria A, Jiang H, Li X, Akhter K, Zhang J, et al. Atlas-based whole brain white matter analysis using large deformation diffeomorphic metric mapping: application to normal elderly and Alzheimer's disease participants. Neuroimage. 2009. June;46(2):486–99. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.01.002 . Pubmed Central PMCID: 2885858. Epub 2009/04/23. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gooya A, Pohl KM, Bilello M, Cirillo L, Biros G, Melhem ER, et al. GLISTR: Glioma Image Segmentation and Registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2012. October;31(10):1941–54. 10.1109/TMI.2012.2210558 . Epub 2012/08/22. eng. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Garyfallidis E, Brett M, Amirbekian B, Rokem A, van der Walt S, Descoteaux M, et al. Dipy, a library for the analysis of diffusion MRI data. Front Neuroinform. 2014;8(8):8 10.3389/fninf.2014.00008 . Pubmed Central PMCID: 3931231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Caruyer E, Daducci A, Descoteaux M, Houde J-C, Thiran J-P, Verma R, editors. Phantomas: a flexible software library to simulate diffusion MR phantoms. ISMRM; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hoy AR, Koay CG, Kecskemeti SR, Alexander AL. Optimization of a free water elimination two-compartment model for diffusion tensor imaging. NeuroImage. 2014;103:323–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tustison NJ, Avants BB, Cook PA, Zheng Y, Egan A, Yushkevich PA, et al. N4ITK: Improved N3 Bias Correction. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2010;29(6):1310–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Helenius J, Soinne L, Perkio J, Salonen O, Kangasmaki A, Kaste M, et al. Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Normal Human Brains in Various Age Groups. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002 February 1, 2002;23(2):194–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wang R, Benner T, Sorensen AG, Wedeen VJ. Diffusion Toolkit: A Software Package for Diffusion Imaging Data Processing and Tractography2007.
  • 32.Garyfallidis E, Côté M-A, Rheault F, Sidhu J, Hau J, Petit L, et al. Recognition of white matter bundles using local and global streamline-based registration and clustering Neuroimage. 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhang H, Schneider T, Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Alexander DC. NODDI: practical in vivo neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of the human brain. NeuroImage. 2012;61:1000–16. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.072 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Abdullah KG, Lubelski D, Nucifora PGP, Brem S. Use of diffusion tensor imaging in glioma resection. Neurosurgical focus. 2013;34(4):E1 10.3171/2013.1.FOCUS12412 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schilling KG, Nath V, Hansen C, Parvathaneni P, Blaber J, Gao Y, et al. Limits to anatomical accuracy of diffusion tractography using modern approaches. NeuroImage. 2019;185:1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Liao R, Ning L, Chen Z, Rigolo L, Gong S, Pasternak O, et al. Performance of unscented Kalman filter tractography in edema: Analysis of the two-tensor model. NeuroImage: Clinical. 2017;15:819–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lecoeur J, Caruyer E, Elliott M, Brem S, Macyszyn L, Verma R. Addressing the Challenge of Edema in Fiber Tracking. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention MICCAI 2014, DTI Tractography Challenge; Boston, MA2014.
  • 38.Brem SS, Bierman PJ, Brem H, Butowski N, Chamberlain MC, Chiocca EA, et al. Central nervous system cancers. Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2011. April;9(4):352–400. 10.6004/jnccn.2011.0036 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sanai N, Li J, Boerner J, Stark K, Wu J, Kim S, et al. Phase 0 trial of AZD1775 in first-recurrence glioblastoma patients. Clinical Cancer Research. 2018;24(16):3820–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Parker D, L D, S B, R V, editors. Tracking Through Edema: Enhanced Neurosurgical Planning Using Advanced Diffusion Modeling of the Peritumoral Tissue Microstructure. Society for Neuro-Oncology Annual Scientific Meeting (SNO); 2018; New Orleans.
  • 41.Mori S, Zijl PCMv. Fiber tracking: principles and strategies—a technical review. NMR in Biomedicine. 2002. Nov-Dec;15(7–8):468–80. 10.1002/nbm.781 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tunc B, Parker WA, Ingalhalikar M, Verma R. Automated tract extraction via atlas based Adaptive Clustering. Neuroimage. 2014. August 15;102P2:596–607. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.08.021 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tunc B, Solmaz B, Parker D, Whyte J, Hart T, Rabinowitz A, et al. , editors. Measuring Disruption of the Structural Connectome in Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury. OHBM; 2017; Vancouver, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mukherjee P. Diffusion tensor imaging and fiber tractography in acute stroke. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2005. August;15(3):655–65, xii. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Pew-Thian Yap

21 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-22990

Freewater EstimatoR using iNtErpolated iniTialization (FERNET): Toward Accurate Estimation of Free Water in Peritumoral Region Using Single-Shell Diffusion MRI Data

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Verma,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pew-Thian Yap

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3.  Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

'No conflict of interest to be reported' 

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Synaptive Medical Inc.

  1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The work introduced a method to estimate free water volume fraction in the peritumoral region from single-shell diffusion MRI. The method aims to improve the results of a non-linear problem (two-compartment model) by using proper initialization. The manuscript is well-written and intelligible. The analyses and validations are robust and sufficient to support the authors' argument. This work could have an interesting contribution to a busy clinical setting.

There are some minor concerns that the authors should address in full:

1. The lambda_max in Eq.[4] is set to 2.5. As I understand, this value has to be smaller than d=3.0 so that the denominator is defined. Is there any reason behind the choice of 2.5, if not another value <3.0, say 2.9?

2. During preprocessing, FA and MD maps were registered to the Eve atlas using non-linear registration. Since the atlas was built from healthy adults while the data in the experiment contain tumor, what strategy was used to ensure proper alignment and prevent registration error?

3. In Fig.1, although the violin plots are informative and useful in showing the distribution of the error, it can only show one SNR value at a time (in panel A, B, and C). SNR=40 is optimistic and might not be found in some clinical data. Given the authors had results for other noise levels as well, could the heatmap of error be used with y-axis for SNR and x-axis for FW volume fraction

4. In Fig.1 A and B, the error (of FERNET) seems to increase with increased FW volume fraction, while in C, the errors seem to be stable. Is there any explanation for this observation?

5. Could the authors give some insights into why the 'bo-initialization' fails? In Fig.1 A, B, and C, besides higher error, in some cases, the distribution of the 'bo-initialization' results are scattered or skewed with outliers, which is not observed in FERNET results. Also, the trend of 'b0-initialization' results is harder to predict (overestimate in some cases but underestimate in other cases). A discussion on this would yield more insights into the problem.

6. The multi-shell ground truth used was from [18], which is a two-compartment model. I think NODDI is a better model to used as the ground truth given it also utilizes multi-shell data and has three compartments.

7. From Fig.2, seems like the FERNET always overestimates the FW volume fraction (which is consistent with Fig.1). Is there any explanation for this and potential method for correction?

8. Diffusion MRI signal suffers from the degeneracy problem that isotropic diffusion (sphere) could have a similar signal compare to anisotropic diffusion with high dispersion (e.g. random oriented sharp tensor). I expect the peritumor region would have anisotropic diffusion with high dispersion since tumors could distort fibers pathway. This would be problematic as the solver could not distinguish between true free water diffusion and high dispersion anisotropic diffusion. Is this an issue in FERNET?

9. Single-shell clinical data usually has b=800, 1000, or 1500. Is the value of b-shell affect the estimation? For instance, free diffusion signal at b=1000 or 1500 is close to zero and more likely to be affected by the Rician noise floor than signal at b=800.

Reviewer #2: The authors proposed a method to improve free water estimation (FWE) in peritumoral regions with single-shell diffusion MRI data, by better initialization. The new initialization method took advantage of the image intensity in the b0 image to find the ratio between free water and tissue water. The paper presented a relatively comprehensive validation of the FERNET method with simulation data and experimental data in both healthy brains and tumor patients. The results look convincing and the topic potentially has an important impact for tumor research. I have several comments below.

1. Methods 2.2, Equation [2], I am not this equation tells an interpolation between two initialization strategies. Is that the “x” between f_b0 and f_MD stands for interpolation? Consider change the mathematical formulation.

2. Since the FERNET heavily depends on the image intensity of the b0 image, errors can happen when b0 is problematic. 1) As the author mentioned, field inhomogeneity can affect the results and they used N4 correction. But it is know that N4 is not always successful. 2) Signal dropout due to susceptibility artifacts, e.g., in the frontal-orbital area. Please address these issues.

3. f_b0 replies on the ratios between S0, Sw (CSF), and St(white matter). How about gray matter, how was the fitting done in the GM voxels?

4. Some of the methodological details are quite empirical. For example, “we define as the 5th percentile of the unweighted signal in a region of WM, and we define as the 95th percentile of unweighted signal in a region of CSF”. How the percentiles were determined? Also, “the value of in Equation 2 is set following Equation 3”, I do not see rationale of determining this way. Equation 3 in itself is also empirical.

5. Was regularization performed in this study and how? The authors mentioned in Results 3.4, that the proposed method was less dependent on regularization. This needs to be clarified.

6. Method 2.3 “0_ and 0_ are values taken as reference from selected voxels in human data”. Where were the selected voxels? I think it is much better to do a segmentation of the b0 image to obtain S0 in WM, GM, and CSF.

7. Method 2.4.1 “Automatic tumor and peritumoral region segmentation was obtained in the patients from Dataset 1 and Dataset 2 using GLISTR”. Please access the segmentation accuracy, at least in part of the data.

8. Results 3.2, in the simulation, both b0 initialization and interpolated initialization results showed that the estimation errors increased as the ground truth free water fraction increased. Please explain.

9. Figure 2, it is counterintuitive that high correlation was shown in green, low correlation was shown in red, and negative correlation is shown in blue.

10. In Figure 5, should (A) and (B) be switched? It looks like that the percentage of unrealistic fit is higher with bias field correction. Also, some WM regions in this figure were white, which is out of the colorbar. What does that indicate?

11. To test the accuracy of fiber tracking, it would be better to do the validation with the multi-shell data and compare the results with multi-shell FWE.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dan Wu

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233645. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233645.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Apr 2020

The "clean" file is in the PlosOne format

The "tracked" file has all the changed tracked

The figures have been checked on the software approved by PlosOne and each of them are uploaded separately

Data has been uploaded and statement added to cover letter and the end of the paper

Funding statement: Synaptive Medical's role in the paper was clarified.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Fernet_Plos_reviews_final.docx

Decision Letter 1

Pew-Thian Yap

11 May 2020

Freewater EstimatoR using iNtErpolated iniTialization (FERNET): Characterizing Peritumoral Edema Using Clinically Feasible Diffusion MRI Data

PONE-D-19-22990R1

Dear Dr. Verma,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Pew-Thian Yap

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequently addressed all my comments. The mansucript is ready for publication on PLOS

However, the response to comment#3 that "DTI is primarily a WM modality ..." is not entirely true. DTI is useful in characterizing GM too, e.g., hippocampus and cortex. There's a number of studes. I would suggest the authors to explictly acknowledge that their current approach is not suitable for GM.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dan Wu

Acceptance letter

Pew-Thian Yap

15 May 2020

PONE-D-19-22990R1

Freewater EstimatoR using iNtErpolated iniTialization (FERNET): Characterizing Peritumoral Edema Using Clinically Feasible Diffusion MRI Data

Dear Dr. Verma:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Pew-Thian Yap

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Fernet_Plos_reviews_final.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    We have uploaded the data set necessary to replicate our study findings. The healthy controls used in the paper are part of the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort dataset which is available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/gap/cgi-bin/study.cgi?study_id=phs000607.v3.p2. The healthy controls from Dataset 1 and simulated data can be found at https://github.com/DiCIPHRLab/ Fernet/tree/paper_data. The brain tumor data in the paper is restricted. It requires an agreement with Penn, and can only be released once the said had been executed. The contact person for that isRagini Verma, ragini@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES