Clinical Feasibility of Noninvasive Visualization of Lymphatic Flow with Principles of Spin Labeling MR Imaging: Implications for Lymphedema Assessment

Purpose To extend a commonly used noninvasive arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance (MR) imaging method for measuring blood flow to evaluate lymphatic flow. Materials and Methods All volunteers (n = 12) provided informed consent in accordance with institutional review board and HIPAA regulations. Quantitative relaxation time (T1 and T2) measurements were made in extracted human lymphatic fluid at 3.0 T. Guided by these parameters, an arterial spin labeling MR imaging approach was adapted to measure lymphatic flow (flow-alternating inversion-recovery lymphatic water labeling, 3 × 3 × 5 mm) in healthy subjects (n = 6; mean age, 30 years ± 1 [standard deviation]; recruitment duration, 2 months). Lymphatic flow velocity was quantified by performing spin labeling measurements as a function of postlabeling delay time and by measuring time to peak signal intensity in axillary lymph nodes. Clinical feasibility was evaluated in patients with stage II lymphedema (three women; age range, 43–64 years) and in control subjects with unilateral cuff-induced lymphatic stenosis (one woman, two men; age range, 31–35 years). Results Mean T1 and T2 relaxation times of lymphatic fluid at 3.0 T were 3100 msec ± 160 (range, 2930–3210 msec; median, 3200 msec) and 610 msec ± 12 (range, 598–618 msec; median, 610 msec), respectively. Healthy lymphatic flow (afferent vessel to axillary node) velocity was 0.61 cm/min ± 0.13 (n = 6). A reduction (P \u3c .005) in lymphatic flow velocity in the affected arms of patients and the affected arms of healthy subjects with manipulated cuff-induced flow reduction was observed. The ratio of unaffected to affected axilla lymphatic velocity (1.24 ± 0.18) was significantly (P \u3c .005) higher than the left-to-right ratio in healthy subjects (0.91 ± 0.18). Conclusion This work provides a foundation for clinical investigations whereby lymphedema etiogenesis and therapies may be interrogated without exogenous agents and with clinically available imaging equipment

Early Detection: A strategy to reduce risk and severity?

Despite changes in surgical techniques, radiotherapy targeting and the apparent earlier detection of cancers, secondary lymphoedema is still a significant problem for about 20–30% of those who receive treatment for cancer, although the incidence and prevalence does seem to be falling. The figures above generally relate to detection of an enlarged limb or other area, but it seems that about 60% of all patients also suffer other problems with how the limb feels, what can or cannot be done with it and a range of social or psychological issues. Often these ‘subjective’ changes occur before the objective ones, such as a change in arm volume or circumference. For most of those treated for cancer lymphoedema does not develop immediately, and, while about 60–70% develop it in the first few years, some do not develop lymphoedema for up to 15 or 20 years. Those who will develop clinically manifest lymphoedema in the future are, for some time, in a latent or hidden phase of lymphoedema. There also seems to be some risk factors which are indicators for a higher likelihood of lymphoedema post treatment, including oedema at the surgical site, arm dominance, age, skin conditions, and body mass index (BMI)