Effects of Breathing Patterns on Amide Proton Transfer MRI in the Kidney: A Preliminary Comparative Study in Healthy Volunteers and Patients With Tumors

Background The amide proton transfer‐weighted (APTw) imaging for kidney diseases is important. However, the breathing patterns on APTw imaging remains unexplored. Purpose This study aimed to investigate the effects of intermittent breath‐hold (IBH) and free breathing (FB) on renal 3D‐APTw imaging. Study Type Healthy volunteers were enrolled prospectively, and renal clear cell carcinoma (RCCC) patients were included retrospectively. Population 58 healthy volunteers and 10 RCCC patients. Field Strength/Sequence 3‐T, turbo spin echo, and fast field echo. Assessment 3D‐APTw imaging was scanned using the IBH and FB methods in volunteers and using the IBH method in RCCC patients. The image quality was evaluated by three observers according to the 5‐point Likert scale. Optimal images rated at three points or higher were used to measure the APT values. Statistical Analysis The measurement repeatability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland–Altman plot. The APT values were analyzed using McNemar's test, one‐way analysis of variance, and t test. Results 50 healthy volunteers and 8 RCCC patients were enrolled. Renal 3D‐APTw imaging using the IBH method revealed a higher success rate (88% vs 78%). The ICCs were excellent in the IBH group (ICCs > 0.74) and were good in the FB group (ICCs < 0.74). No significant differences in the APT values among various zones using the IBH ( P = 0.263) or FB method ( P = 0.506). The mean APT value using the IBH method (2.091% ± 0.388%) was slightly lower than the FB method (2.176% ± 0.292%), but no significant difference ( P = 0.233). The APT value of RCCC (4.832% ± 1.361%) was considerably higher than normal renal using the IBH method. Conclusions The study demonstrated that the IBH method substantially increased the image quality of renal 3D‐APTw imaging. Furthermore, APT values may vary between normal and tumor tissues. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 2