PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that diffusion-weighted (DW)-PROPELLER (periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction) MRI provides more accurate liver tumor necrotic fraction (NF) and viable tumor volume (VTV) measurements than conventional DW-SE-EPI (spin echo echo-planar imaging) methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved all experiments. In six rabbits implanted with 10 VX2 liver tumors, DW-PROPELLER and DW-SE-EPI scans were performed at contiguous axial slice positions covering each tumor volume. Apparent diffusion coefficient maps of each tumor were used to generate spatially resolved tumor viability maps for NF and VTV measurements. We compared NF, whole tumor volume (WTV), and VTV measurements to corresponding reference standard histological measurements based on correlation and concordance coefficients and the Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: DW-PROPELLER generally improved image quality with less distortion compared to DW-SE-EPI. DW-PROPELLER NF, WTV, and VTV measurements were strongly correlated and satisfactorily concordant with histological measurements. DW-SE-EPI NF measurements were weakly correlated and poorly concordant with histological measurements. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that DW-PROPELLER WTV and VTV measurements were less biased from histological measurements than the corresponding DW-SE-EPI measurements. CONCLUSION: DW-PROPELLER MRI can provide spatially resolved liver tumor viability maps for accurate NF and VTV measurements, superior to DW-SE-EPI approaches. DW-PROPELLER measurements may serve as a noninvasive surrogate for pathology, offering the potential for more accurate assessments of therapy response than conventional anatomic size measurements. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that diffusion-weighted (DW)-PROPELLER (periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction) MRI provides more accurate liver tumor necrotic fraction (NF) and viable tumor volume (VTV) measurements than conventional DW-SE-EPI (spin echo echo-planar imaging) methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved all experiments. In six rabbits implanted with 10 VX2 liver tumors, DW-PROPELLER and DW-SE-EPI scans were performed at contiguous axial slice positions covering each tumor volume. Apparent diffusion coefficient maps of each tumor were used to generate spatially resolved tumor viability maps for NF and VTV measurements. We compared NF, whole tumor volume (WTV), and VTV measurements to corresponding reference standard histological measurements based on correlation and concordance coefficients and the Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: DW-PROPELLER generally improved image quality with less distortion compared to DW-SE-EPI. DW-PROPELLER NF, WTV, and VTV measurements were strongly correlated and satisfactorily concordant with histological measurements. DW-SE-EPI NF measurements were weakly correlated and poorly concordant with histological measurements. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that DW-PROPELLER WTV and VTV measurements were less biased from histological measurements than the corresponding DW-SE-EPI measurements. CONCLUSION: DW-PROPELLER MRI can provide spatially resolved liver tumor viability maps for accurate NF and VTV measurements, superior to DW-SE-EPI approaches. DW-PROPELLER measurements may serve as a noninvasive surrogate for pathology, offering the potential for more accurate assessments of therapy response than conventional anatomic size measurements. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Ihab R Kamel; David A Bluemke; Douglas Ramsey; Mohammad Abusedera; Michael Torbenson; John Eng; Gilberto Szarf; Jean-Francois Geschwind Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Richard A D Carano; Adrienne L Ross; Jed Ross; Simon P Williams; Hartmut Koeppen; Ralph H Schwall; Nicholas Van Bruggen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Brian D Ross; Bradford A Moffat; Theodore S Lawrence; Suresh K Mukherji; Stephen S Gebarski; Douglas J Quint; Timothy D Johnson; Larry Junck; Patricia L Robertson; Karin M Muraszko; Qian Dong; Charles R Meyer; Peyton H Bland; Patrick McConville; Hairong Geng; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Jonathan P Dyke; David M Panicek; John H Healey; Paul A Meyers; Andrew G Huvos; Lawrence H Schwartz; Howard T Thaler; Paul S Tofts; Richard Gorlick; Jason A Koutcher; Douglas Ballon Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Johnathan C Chung; Neel K Naik; Robert J Lewandowski; Jie Deng; Mary F Mulcahy; Laura M Kulik; Kent T Sato; Robert K Ryu; Riad Salem; Andrew C Larson; Reed A Omary Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Samdeep K Mouli; Patrick Tyler; Joseph L McDevitt; Aaron C Eifler; Yang Guo; Jodi Nicolai; Robert J Lewandowski; Weiguo Li; Daniel Procissi; Robert K Ryu; Y Andrew Wang; Riad Salem; Andrew C Larson; Reed A Omary Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Roland Bammer; Samantha J Holdsworth; Wouter B Veldhuis; Stefan T Skare Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 2.266