PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between image noise, voxel size, and voxel-wise repeatability of a dynamic contrast agent-enhanced (DCE) computed tomographic (CT) examination for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the local research ethics committee, and all patients gave written informed consent. Twenty-nine patients (mean age, 69.1 years; range, 56-80 years) with biopsy-proved prostate cancer underwent two DCE CT examinations within 1 week prior to radiation therapy. Parameter maps of transfer constant (K(trans)), the fraction of blood plasma (v(p)), the fraction of extravascular extracellular space (v(e)), and the flux rate constant between the extravascular extracellular space and plasma (k(ep)) were calculated at 15 different image resolutions, with kernel sizes ranging from 0.002 to 2.57 cm(3). Statistical analysis to quantify the voxel-wise repeatability was performed by using a Bland-Altman analysis on all tracer kinetic model parameter maps of each patient. From this analysis, the within-voxel standard deviation (wSD) was calculated as a function of spatial resolution. RESULTS: A kernel size in the range of 0.1-0.3 cm(3) yields reliable information. At 0.15 cm(3), the median wSDs of K(trans), k(ep), v(p), and v(e) are 0.047 min(-1), 0.144 min(-1), 0.011, and 0.104, respectively. With increasing kernel size, these values reach stable levels of approximately 0.02 min(-1), 0.05 min(-1), 0.005, and 0.05, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is a high voxel-wise repeatability of the DCE CT imaging technique for prostate cancer for kernel sizes as small as 0.1 cm(3). With the relationship between kernel size, image noise and voxel-wise repeatability, it becomes possible to estimate for alternative DCE CT protocols (eg, those with a reduced radiation dose) at what kernel size a sufficient repeatability can be obtained. (c) RSNA, 2010.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between image noise, voxel size, and voxel-wise repeatability of a dynamic contrast agent-enhanced (DCE) computed tomographic (CT) examination for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the local research ethics committee, and all patients gave written informed consent. Twenty-nine patients (mean age, 69.1 years; range, 56-80 years) with biopsy-proved prostate cancer underwent two DCE CT examinations within 1 week prior to radiation therapy. Parameter maps of transfer constant (K(trans)), the fraction of blood plasma (v(p)), the fraction of extravascular extracellular space (v(e)), and the flux rate constant between the extravascular extracellular space and plasma (k(ep)) were calculated at 15 different image resolutions, with kernel sizes ranging from 0.002 to 2.57 cm(3). Statistical analysis to quantify the voxel-wise repeatability was performed by using a Bland-Altman analysis on all tracer kinetic model parameter maps of each patient. From this analysis, the within-voxel standard deviation (wSD) was calculated as a function of spatial resolution. RESULTS: A kernel size in the range of 0.1-0.3 cm(3) yields reliable information. At 0.15 cm(3), the median wSDs of K(trans), k(ep), v(p), and v(e) are 0.047 min(-1), 0.144 min(-1), 0.011, and 0.104, respectively. With increasing kernel size, these values reach stable levels of approximately 0.02 min(-1), 0.05 min(-1), 0.005, and 0.05, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is a high voxel-wise repeatability of the DCE CT imaging technique for prostate cancer for kernel sizes as small as 0.1 cm(3). With the relationship between kernel size, image noise and voxel-wise repeatability, it becomes possible to estimate for alternative DCE CT protocols (eg, those with a reduced radiation dose) at what kernel size a sufficient repeatability can be obtained. (c) RSNA, 2010.
Authors: Uulke A van der Heide; Antonetta C Houweling; Greetje Groenendaal; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Philippe Lambin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
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
Authors: Petra J van Houdt; Harsh K Agarwal; Laurens D van Buuren; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Søren Haack; Henk G van der Poel; Ghazaleh Ghobadi; Floris J Pos; Johannes M Peeters; Peter L Choyke; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jean-Marie Guyader; Wyke Huizinga; Dirk H J Poot; Matthijs van Kranenburg; André Uitterdijk; Wiro J Niessen; Stefan Klein Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lucian Beer; Stephan H Polanec; Pascal A T Baltzer; Georg Schatzl; Dietmar Georg; Christian Schestak; Anja Dutschke; Harald Herrmann; Peter Mazal; Alexander K Brendel; Shahrokh F Shariat; Helmut Ringl; Thomas H Helbich; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Faisal Mahmood; Marcel van Schie; Robert Julian; Ben George; Marielle E P Philippens; Uulke A van der Heide; Daniela Thorwarth; Kathrine R Redalen Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 6.280