Literature DB >> 20187179

A comparison of tracer kinetic models for T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: application in carcinoma of the cervix.

Stephanie B Donaldson1, Catharine M L West, Susan E Davidson, Bernadette M Carrington, Gillian Hutchison, Andrew P Jones, Steven P Sourbron, David L Buckley.   

Abstract

The Tofts tracer kinetic models are often used to analyze dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data. They are derived from a general two-compartment exchange model (2CXM) but assume negligible plasma mean transit time. The 2CXM estimates tissue plasma perfusion and capillary permeability-surface area; the Tofts models estimate the transfer constant K(trans), which reflects a combination of these two parameters. The aims of this study were to compare the 2CXM and Tofts models and report microvascular parameters in patients with cervical cancer. Thirty patients were scanned pretreatment using a dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI protocol with a 3 sec temporal resolution and a total scan duration of 4 min. Whole-tumor parameters were estimated with both models. The 2CXM provided superior fits to the data for all patients (all 30 P values < 0.005), and significantly different parameter estimates were obtained (P < 0.01). K(trans) (mean = 0.35 +/- 0.26 min(-1)) did not equal absolute values of tissue plasma perfusion (mean = 0.65 +/- 0.56 mL/mL/min) or permeability-surface area (mean = 0.14 +/- 0.09 mL/mL/min) but correlated strongly with tissue plasma perfusion (r = 0.944; P = 0.01). Average plasma mean transit time, calculated with the 2CXM, was 22 +/- 16 sec, suggesting the assumption of negligible plasma mean transit time is not appropriate in this dataset and the 2CXM is better suited for its analysis than the Tofts models. The results demonstrate the importance of selecting an appropriate tracer kinetic model in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20187179     DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22217

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   4.668


  28 in total

1.  Dual-input two-compartment pharmacokinetic model of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Jian-Feng Yang; Zhen-Hua Zhao; Yu Zhang; Li Zhao; Li-Ming Yang; Min-Ming Zhang; Bo-Yin Wang; Ting Wang; Bao-Chun Lu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Multi-parametric assessment of the anti-angiogenic effects of liposomal glucocorticoids.

Authors:  Ewelina Kluza; Marieke Heisen; Sophie Schmid; Daisy W J van der Schaft; Raymond M Schiffelers; Gert Storm; Bart M ter Haar Romeny; Gustav J Strijkers; Klaas Nicolay
Journal:  Angiogenesis       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 9.596

3.  Simultaneous perfusion and permeability measurements using combined spin- and gradient-echo MRI.

Authors:  Heiko Schmiedeskamp; Jalal B Andre; Matus Straka; Thomas Christen; Seema Nagpal; Lawrence Recht; Reena P Thomas; Greg Zaharchuk; Roland Bammer
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 6.200

Review 4.  Tracer-kinetic modeling of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and CT: a primer.

Authors:  Michael Ingrisch; Steven Sourbron
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 2.745

5.  Effects of flip angle uncertainty and noise on the accuracy of DCE-MRI metrics: comparison between standard concentration-based and signal difference methods.

Authors:  Ping Wang; Yiqun Xue; Xia Zhao; Jiangsheng Yu; Mark Rosen; Hee Kwon Song
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 2.546

6.  Modeling Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Data with a Constrained Local AIF.

Authors:  Chong Duan; Jesper F Kallehauge; Carlos J Pérez-Torres; G Larry Bretthorst; Scott C Beeman; Kari Tanderup; Joseph J H Ackerman; Joel R Garbow
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 7.  Model selection in measures of vascular parameters using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: experimental and clinical applications.

Authors:  James R Ewing; Hassan Bagher-Ebadian
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.044

8.  Statistical comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI pharmacokinetic models in human breast cancer.

Authors:  Xia Li; E Brian Welch; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Lei Xu; Lori R Arlinghaus; Jaime Farley; Ingrid A Mayer; Mark C Kelley; Ingrid M Meszoely; Julie Means-Powell; Vandana G Abramson; Ana M Grau; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI model selection for predicting tumor aggressiveness in papillary thyroid cancers.

Authors:  Ramesh Paudyal; Yonggang Lu; Vaios Hatzoglou; Andre Moreira; Hilda E Stambuk; Jung Hun Oh; Kristen M Cunanan; David Aramburu Nunez; Yousef Mazaheri; Mithat Gonen; Alan Ho; James A Fagin; Richard J Wong; Ashok Shaha; R Michael Tuttle; Amita Shukla-Dave
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 4.044

10.  Fetal MRI: A Technical Update with Educational Aspirations.

Authors:  Ali Gholipour; Judith A Estroff; Carol E Barnewolt; Richard L Robertson; P Ellen Grant; Borjan Gagoski; Simon K Warfield; Onur Afacan; Susan A Connolly; Jeffrey J Neil; Adam Wolfberg; Robert V Mulkern
Journal:  Concepts Magn Reson Part A Bridg Educ Res       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 0.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.