Literature DB >> 18296759

Computationally efficient vascular input function models for quantitative kinetic modelling using DCE-MRI.

Matthew R Orton1, James A d'Arcy, Simon Walker-Samuel, David J Hawkes, David Atkinson, David J Collins, Martin O Leach.   

Abstract

A description of the vascular input function is needed to obtain tissue kinetic parameter estimates from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) data. This paper describes a general modelling framework for defining compact functional forms to describe vascular input functions. By appropriately specifying the components of this model it is possible to generate models that are realistic, and that ensure that the tissue concentration curves can be analytically calculated. This means that the computations necessary to estimate parameters from measured data are relatively efficient, which is important if such methods are to become of use in clinical practice. Three models defined by four parameters, using exponential, gamma-variate and cosine descriptions of the bolus, are described and their properties investigated using simulations. The results indicate that if there is no plasma fraction, then the proposed models are indistinguishable. When a small plasma fraction is present the exponential model gives parameter estimates that are biassed by up to 50%, while the other two models give very little bias; up to 10% but less than 5% in most cases. With a larger plasma fraction the exponential model is again biassed, the gamma-variate model has a small bias, but the cosine model has a very little bias and is indistinguishable from the model used to generate the data. The computational speed of the analytic approaches is compared with a fast-Fourier-transform-based numerical convolution approach. The analytic methods are nearly 10 times faster than the numerical methods for the isolated computation of the convolution, and around 4-5 times faster when used in an optimization routine to obtain parameter estimates. These results were obtained from five example data sets, one of which was examined in more detail to compare the estimates obtained using the different models, and with literature values.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18296759     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/5/005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  37 in total

1.  Free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the abdomen and chest using a radial gradient echo sequence with K-space weighted image contrast (KWIC).

Authors:  Kyung Won Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Yong Sik Jeon; Sung Eun Kang; Jee Hyun Baek; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi; Yung-Jue Bang; Berthold Kiefer; Kai Tobias Block; Hyunjun Ji; Simon Bauer; Chin Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  A Bayesian hierarchical model for DCE-MRI to evaluate treatment response in a phase II study in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

Authors:  Brandon Whitcher; Volker J Schmid; David J Collins; Matthew R Orton; Dow-Mu Koh; Isabela Diaz de Corcuera; Marta Parera; Josep M del Campo; Nandita M DeSouza; Martin O Leach; Kevin Harrington; Iman A El-Hariry
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 2.310

3.  Simultaneous magnetic resonance angiography and perfusion (MRAP) measurement: initial application in lower extremity skeletal muscle.

Authors:  Katherine L Wright; Nicole Seiberlich; John A Jesberger; Dean A Nakamoto; Raymond F Muzic; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Pixel-by-pixel analysis of DCE-MRI curve shape patterns in knees of active and inactive juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients.

Authors:  Robert Hemke; Cristina Lavini; Charlotte M Nusman; J Merlijn van den Berg; Koert M Dolman; Dieneke Schonenberg-Meinema; Marion A J van Rossum; Taco W Kuijpers; Mario Maas
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Multiparametric fully-integrated 18-FDG PET/MRI of advanced gastric cancer for prediction of chemotherapy response: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Dong Ho Lee; Se Hyung Kim; Seock-Ah Im; Do-Youn Oh; Tae-Yong Kim; Joon Koo Han
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Short-term follow-up MRI after unplanned resection of malignant soft-tissue tumours; quantitative measurements on dynamic contrast enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images.

Authors:  Jeung Il Kim; In Sook Lee; You Seon Song; Se Kyoung Park; Kyung-Un Choi; Jong Woon Song
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for characterising nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison of semiquantitative and quantitative parameters and correlation with tumour stage.

Authors:  Bingsheng Huang; Chun-Sing Wong; Brandon Whitcher; Dora Lai-Wan Kwong; Vincent Lai; Queenie Chan; Pek-Lan Khong
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-02-02       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Arterial input functions in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: which model performs best when assessing breast cancer response?

Authors:  David K Woolf; N Jane Taylor; Andreas Makris; Nina Tunariu; David J Collins; Sonia P Li; Mei-Lin Ah-See; Mark Beresford; Anwar R Padhani
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Evaluation of microvascular permeability with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the differentiation of primary CNS lymphoma and glioblastoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation.

Authors:  P Kickingereder; F Sahm; B Wiestler; M Roethke; S Heiland; H-P Schlemmer; W Wick; A von Deimling; M Bendszus; A Radbruch
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 3.825

10.  Feasibility of Single-Input Tracer Kinetic Modeling with Continuous-Time Formalism in Liver 4-Phase Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT.

Authors:  Sang Ho Lee; Yasuji Ryu; Koichi Hayano; Hiroyuki Yoshida
Journal:  Abdom Imaging (2014)       Date:  2014-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.