PURPOSE: To assess the temporal sampling requirements needed for quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) data with a reference region (RR) model in human breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulations were used to study errors in pharmacokinetic parameters (K(trans) and v(e)) estimated by the RR model using six DCE-MRI acquisitions over a range of pharmacokinetic parameter values, arterial input functions, and temporal samplings. DCE-MRI data were acquired on 12 breast cancer patients and parameters were estimated using the native resolution data (16.4 seconds) and compared to downsampled 32.8-second and 65.6-second data. RESULTS: Simulations show that, in the majority of parameter combinations, the RR model results in an error less than 20% in the extracted parameters with temporal sampling as poor as 35.6 seconds. The experimental results show a high correlation between K(trans) and v(e) estimates from data acquired at 16.4-second temporal resolution compared to the downsampled 32.8-second data: the slope of the regression line was 1.025 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.021, 1.029), Pearson's correlation r = 0.943 (95% CI: 0.940, 0.945) for K(trans), and 1.023 (95% CI: 1.021. 1.025), r = 0.979 (95% CI: 0.978, 0.980) for v(e). For the 64-second temporal resolution data the results were: 0.890 (95% CI: 0.894, 0.905), r = 0.8645, (95% CI: 0.858, 0.871) for K(trans), and 1.041 (95% CI: 1.039, 1.043), r = 0.970 (95% CI: 0.968, 0.971) for v(e). CONCLUSION: RR analysis allows for a significant reduction in temporal sampling requirements and this lends itself to analyze DCE-MRI data acquired in practical situations. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To assess the temporal sampling requirements needed for quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) data with a reference region (RR) model in humanbreast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulations were used to study errors in pharmacokinetic parameters (K(trans) and v(e)) estimated by the RR model using six DCE-MRI acquisitions over a range of pharmacokinetic parameter values, arterial input functions, and temporal samplings. DCE-MRI data were acquired on 12 breast cancerpatients and parameters were estimated using the native resolution data (16.4 seconds) and compared to downsampled 32.8-second and 65.6-second data. RESULTS: Simulations show that, in the majority of parameter combinations, the RR model results in an error less than 20% in the extracted parameters with temporal sampling as poor as 35.6 seconds. The experimental results show a high correlation between K(trans) and v(e) estimates from data acquired at 16.4-second temporal resolution compared to the downsampled 32.8-second data: the slope of the regression line was 1.025 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.021, 1.029), Pearson's correlation r = 0.943 (95% CI: 0.940, 0.945) for K(trans), and 1.023 (95% CI: 1.021. 1.025), r = 0.979 (95% CI: 0.978, 0.980) for v(e). For the 64-second temporal resolution data the results were: 0.890 (95% CI: 0.894, 0.905), r = 0.8645, (95% CI: 0.858, 0.871) for K(trans), and 1.041 (95% CI: 1.039, 1.043), r = 0.970 (95% CI: 0.968, 0.971) for v(e). CONCLUSION: RR analysis allows for a significant reduction in temporal sampling requirements and this lends itself to analyze DCE-MRI data acquired in practical situations. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; Jeffrey J Luci; Martin Lepage; Rui Li; Laura Debusk; P Charles Lin; Ronald R Price; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; Greg O Cron; Christina L Addison; Julia C Wallace; Ruth C Wilkins; Bruce A Pappas; Giles E Santyr; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Paul Weatherall; David Thickman; Nola Hylton; Ellen Warner; Etta Pisano; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell Schnall; Gia A DeAngelis; Paul Stomper; Eric L Rosen; Michael O'Loughlin; Steven Harms; David A Bluemke Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan M Galbraith; Martin A Lodge; N Jane Taylor; Gordon J S Rustin; Søren Bentzen; J James Stirling; Anwar R Padhani Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Carmel Hayes; Laura Assersohn; Trevor Powles; Andreas Makris; John Suckling; Martin O Leach; Janet E Husband Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-03-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nola M Hylton; Jeffrey D Blume; Wanda K Bernreuter; Etta D Pisano; Mark A Rosen; Elizabeth A Morris; Paul T Weatherall; Constance D Lehman; Gillian M Newstead; Sandra Polin; Helga S Marques; Laura J Esserman; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anna G Sorace; Savannah C Partridge; Xia Li; Jack Virostko; Stephanie L Barnes; Daniel S Hippe; Wei Huang; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-22
Authors: Lori R Arlinghaus; Xia Li; Mia Levy; David Smith; E Brian Welch; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Oncol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 4.375
Authors: Chengyue Wu; Federico Pineda; David A Hormuth; Gregory S Karczmar; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kiaran P McGee; Ken-Pin Hwang; Daniel C Sullivan; John Kurhanewicz; Yanle Hu; Jihong Wang; Wen Li; Josef Debbins; Eric Paulson; Jeffrey R Olsen; Chia-Ho Hua; Lizette Warner; Daniel Ma; Eduardo Moros; Neelam Tyagi; Caroline Chung Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.071