Literature DB >> 18487033

Comparison of tumor histology to dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging-based physiological estimates.

Michael Aref1, Amir R Chaudhari, Keith L Bailey, Susanne Aref, Erik C Wiener.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare histologically determined cellularity and extracellular space to dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE MRI)-based maps of a two-compartment model's parameters describing tumor contrast agent extravasation, specifically tumor extravascular extracellular space (EES) volume fraction (ve), tumor plasma volume fraction (vp) and volume-normalized contrast agent transfer rate between tumor plasma and interstitium (KTRANS/VT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Obtained ve, vp and KTRANS/VT maps were estimated from gadolinium diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid DCE T1-weighted gradient-echo images at resolutions of 469, 938 and 2500 microm. These parameter maps were compared at each resolution to histologically determined tumor type, and the high-resolution 469-microm maps were compared with automated cell counting using Otsu's method and a color-thresholding method for estimated intracellular (Vintracellular) and extracellular (Vextracellular) space fractions.
RESULTS: The top five KTRANS/VT values obtained from each tumor at 469 and 938 microm resolutions are significantly different from those obtained at 2500 microm (P<.0001) and from one another (P=.0014). Using these top five KTRANS/VT values and the corresponding tumor EES volume fractions ve, we can statistically differentiate invasive ductal carcinomas from noninvasive papillary carcinomas for the 469- and 938-microm resolutions (P=.0017 and P=.0047, respectively), but not for the 2500-microm resolution (P=.9008). The color-thresholding method demonstrated that ve measured by DCE MRI is statistically similar to histologically determined EES. The Vextracellular obtained from the color-thresholding method was statistically similar to the ve measured with DCE MRI for the top 10 KTRANS/VT values (P>.05). DCE MRI-based KTRANS/VT estimates are not statistically correlated with histologically determined cellularity.
CONCLUSION: DCE MRI estimates of tumor physiology are a limited representation of tumor histological features. Extracellular spaces measured by both DCE MRI and microscopic analysis are statistically similar. Tumor typing by DCE MRI is spatial resolution dependent, as lower resolutions average out contributions to voxel-based estimates of KTRANS/VT. Thus, an appropriate resolution window is essential for DCE MRI tumor diagnosis. Within this resolution window, the top KTRANS/VT values with corresponding ve are diagnostic for the tumor types analyzed in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18487033     DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.02.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 0730-725X            Impact factor:   2.546


  16 in total

1.  Prognosis prediction of non-enhancing T2 high signal intensity lesions in glioblastoma patients after standard treatment: application of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Rihyeon Kim; Seung Hong Choi; Tae Jin Yun; Soon-Tae Lee; Chul-Kee Park; Tae Min Kim; Ji-Hoon Kim; Sun-Won Park; Chul-Ho Sohn; Sung-Hye Park; Il Han Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  A quantitative comparison of the influence of individual versus population-derived vascular input functions on dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI in small animals.

Authors:  Mary E Loveless; Jane Halliday; Carsten Liess; Lei Xu; Richard D Dortch; Jennifer Whisenant; John C Waterton; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 3.  Advanced magnetic resonance imaging of the physical processes in human glioblastoma.

Authors:  Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Kyrre E Emblem; Ovidiu Andronesi; Bruce Rosen
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 12.701

4.  Glioma: Application of histogram analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters from T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to tumor grading.

Authors:  S C Jung; J A Yeom; J-H Kim; I Ryoo; S C Kim; H Shin; A L Lee; T J Yun; C-K Park; C-H Sohn; S-H Park; S H Choi
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  A nanocomplex system as targeted contrast agent delivery vehicle for magnetic resonance imaging dynamic contrast enhancement study.

Authors:  Alexandru Korotcov; Liang Shan; Huan Meng; Tongxin Wang; Rajagopalan Sridhar; Yuliang Zhao; Xing-Jie Liang; Paul C Wang
Journal:  J Nanosci Nanotechnol       Date:  2010-11

6.  On the relationship between the apparent diffusion coefficient and extravascular extracellular volume fraction in human breast cancer.

Authors:  Lori R Arlinghaus; Xia Li; A Ridwan Rahman; E Brian Welch; Lei Xu; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 2.546

7.  Tumor characterization with dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and biodegradable macromolecular contrast agents in mice.

Authors:  Xueming Wu; Yi Feng; Eun-Kee Jeong; Lyska Emerson; Zheng-Rong Lu
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI parameters and tumor cellularity in a rat model of cerebral glioma at 7 T.

Authors:  Madhava P Aryal; Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Kelly A Keenan; Hassan Bagher-Ebadian; Swayamprava Panda; Stephen L Brown; Glauber Cabral; Joseph D Fenstermacher; James R Ewing
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2013-07-22       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Brain perfusion CT compared with15O-H2O-PET in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Julie Marie Grüner; Rune Paamand; Liselotte Højgaard; Ian Law
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 3.138

10.  Practical dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in small animal models of cancer: data acquisition, data analysis, and interpretation.

Authors:  Stephanie L Barnes; Jennifer G Whisenant; Mary E Loveless; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 6.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.