Literature DB >> 19746812

A clinically feasible method to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters in breast cancer.

Jun Li1, Yanming Yu, Yibao Zhang, Shanglian Bao, Chunxue Wu, Xiaoying Wang, Jie Li, Xiaopeng Zhang, Jiani Hu.   

Abstract

Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is the MRI technique of choice for detecting breast cancer, which can be roughly classified as either quantitative or semiquantitative. The major advantage of quantitative DCE-MRI is its ability to provide pharmacokinetic parameters such as volume transfer constant (Ktrans) and extravascular extracellular volume fraction (ve). However, semiquantitative DCE-MRI is still the clinical MRI technique of choice for breast cancer diagnosis due to several major practical difficulties in the implementation of quantitative DCE-MRI in a clinical setting, including (1) long acquisition necessary to acquire 3D T1(0) map, (2) challenges in obtaining accurate artery input function (AIF), (3) long computation time required by conventional nonlinear least square (NLS) fitting, and (4) many illogical values often generated by conventional NLS method. The authors developed a new analysis method to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters Ktrans and ve from clinical DCE-MRI data, including fixed T1(0) to eliminate the long acquisition for T1(0) map and "reference region" model to remove the requirement of measuring AIF. Other techniques used in our analysis method are (1) an improved formula to calculate contrast agent (CA) concentration based on signal intensity of SPGR data, (2) FCM clustering-based techniques for automatic segmentation and generation of a clustered concentration data set (3) an empirical formula for CA time course to fit the clustered data sets, and (4) linear regression for the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters. Preliminary results from computer simulation and clinical study of 39 patients have demonstrated (1) the feasibility of their analysis method for estimating Ktrans and ve from clinical DCE-MRI data, (2) significantly less illogical values compared to NLS method (typically less than 1% versus more than 7%), (3) relative insensitivity to the noise in DCE-MRI data; (4) reduction in computation time by a factor of more than 30 times compared to NLS method on average, (5) high statistic correlation between the method used and NLS method (correlation coefficients: 0.941 for Ktrans and 0.881 for ve), and (6) the potential clinical usefulness of the new method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19746812      PMCID: PMC2728567          DOI: 10.1118/1.3152113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  19 in total

1.  Quantitative pharmacokinetic analysis of DCE-MRI data without an arterial input function: a reference region model.

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

2.  Bayesian methods for pharmacokinetic models in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Volker J Schmid; Brandon Whitcher; Anwar R Padhani; N Jane Taylor; Guang-Zhong Yang
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  The theory and applications of the exchange of inert gas at the lungs and tissues.

Authors:  S S KETY
Journal:  Pharmacol Rev       Date:  1951-03       Impact factor: 25.468

4.  Quantification in functional magnetic resonance imaging: fuzzy clustering vs. correlation analysis.

Authors:  R Baumgartner; C Windischberger; E Moser
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.546

5.  Do mammography, sonography, and MR mammography have a diagnostic benefit compared with mammography and sonography?

Authors:  M Müller-Schimpfle; P Stoll; W Stern; S Kurz; F Dammann; C D Claussen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Snapshot FLASH MRI. Applications to T1, T2, and chemical-shift imaging.

Authors:  A Haase
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 4.668

7.  Pharmacokinetics of GdDTPA/dimeglumine after intravenous injection into healthy volunteers.

Authors:  H J Weinmann; M Laniado; W Mützel
Journal:  Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR       Date:  1984

Review 8.  A review of 1H nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation in pathology: are T1 and T2 diagnostic?

Authors:  P A Bottomley; C J Hardy; R E Argersinger; G Allen-Moore
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1987 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Automatic identification and classification of characteristic kinetic curves of breast lesions on DCE-MRI.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Maryellen L Giger; Ulrich Bick; Gillian M Newstead
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 10.  Review of MR image segmentation techniques using pattern recognition.

Authors:  J C Bezdek; L O Hall; L P Clarke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1993 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  8 in total

1.  The impact of reliable prebolus T 1 measurements or a fixed T 1 value in the assessment of glioma patients with dynamic contrast enhancing MRI.

Authors:  Anna Tietze; Kim Mouridsen; Irene Klærke Mikkelsen
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.804

2.  Clinical application of pharmacokinetic analysis as a biomarker of solitary pulmonary nodules: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Hatsuho Mamata; Junichi Tokuda; Ritu R Gill; Robert F Padera; Robert E Lenkinski; David J Sugarbaker; James P Butler; Hiroto Hatabu
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 3.  Current and future applications of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to breast and ovarian cancer patient management.

Authors:  Jim Klostergaard; Kenia Parga; Raphael G Raptis
Journal:  P R Health Sci J       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 0.705

4.  Evaluation of optimized magnetic resonance perfusion imaging scanning time window after contrast agent injection for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.

Authors:  Jie Dong; Dawei Wang; Zhenshen Ma; Guodong Deng; Lanhua Wang; Jiandong Zhang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 5.  Breast MR with special focus on DW-MRI and DCE-MRI.

Authors:  G Petralia; L Bonello; F Priolo; P Summers; M Bellomi
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 6.  Role of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters in the evaluation of treatment response in malignant tumors.

Authors:  Qing-Gang Xu; Jun-Fang Xian
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 2.628

7.  Differentiation of breast cancer from fibroadenoma with dual-echo dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Shiwei Wang; Zachary Delproposto; Haoyu Wang; Xuewei Ding; Conghua Ji; Bei Wang; Maosheng Xu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging data to constrain a positron emission tomography kinetic model: theory and simulations.

Authors:  Jacob U Fluckiger; Xia Li; Jennifer G Whisenant; Todd E Peterson; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Int J Biomed Imaging       Date:  2013-10-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.