Literature DB >> 20817379

Reproducibility of the gadolinium concentration measurements and of the fitting parameters of the vascular input function in the superior sagittal sinus in a patient population.

Cristina Lavini1, Joost J C Verhoeff.   

Abstract

It is widely recognised that the measurement of the arterial input function (AIF) is a key issue and a major source of errors in the pharmacokinetic modelling of dynamic, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) data, and the modality of the AIF determination is still a matter of debate. In this study we addressed the problem of the intrinsic variability of the AIF within the imaged volume of a DCE-MRI scan by systematically investigating the change in the concentration of contrast agent over time and the fit parameters of the derived vascular input function (VIF) obtained from the superior sagittal sinus (SSS) of a patient population that was scanned longitudinally during treatment for high grade glioma. From a total of 82 scanning sessions, we compared the results obtained with three different DCE-MRI protocols and between two different fitting functions. We applied a correction algorithm to the measured concentration-time curves to minimize the effect of the low temporal resolution on the VIF, and investigated the effect of this algorithm on the reproducibility. Finally, where possible, we compared the signal obtained in the SSS to the signal obtained in the middle cerebral artery. We found a good intrapatient reproducibility of both the measured gadolinium concentrations and VIF parameters, and that the variation of the parameters due to slice location within a patient was significantly lower than the intra patient variation. Intrapatient, interscan differences were significantly less marked than inter-patient differences showing a good intraclass correlation coefficient. We did encounter a MRI protocol dependence of the VIF fitting parameters. The correction algorithm significantly improved the reproducibility of the fitting parameters. These results support the idea that the use of a patient specific measured AIF, not necessarily averaged over a large volume, offers a significant benefit with respect to an external AIF or a measured cohort average AIF.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20817379     DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2010.06.017

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


  25 in total

1.  Biopsy targeting with dynamic contrast-enhanced versus standard neuronavigation MRI in glioma: a prospective double-blinded evaluation of selection benefits.

Authors:  Vera C Keil; Bogdan Pintea; Gerrit H Gielen; Susanne Greschus; Rolf Fimmers; Jürgen Gieseke; Matthias Simon; Hans H Schild; Dariusch R Hadizadeh
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 2.  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

3.  Higher blood-brain barrier permeability is associated with higher white matter hyperintensities burden.

Authors:  Yue Li; Man Li; Xiaoyu Zhang; Qinglei Shi; Shuna Yang; Huimin Fan; Wei Qin; Lei Yang; Junliang Yuan; Tao Jiang; Wenli Hu
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 4.849

4.  Feasibility analysis of the parametric response map as an early predictor of treatment efficacy in head and neck cancer.

Authors:  A H Baer; B A Hoff; A Srinivasan; C J Galbán; S K Mukherji
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  DCE-MRI of Brain Fluid Barriers: In Vivo Water Cycling at the Human Choroid Plexus.

Authors:  Valerie C Anderson; Ian J Tagge; Aaron Doud; Xin Li; Charles S Springer; Joseph F Quinn; Jeffrey A Kaye; Katherine V Wild; William D Rooney
Journal:  Tissue Barriers       Date:  2021-09-18

6.  Interpreting therapeutic effect in multiple sclerosis via MRI contrast enhancing lesions: now you see them, now you don't.

Authors:  Ilana R Leppert; S Narayanan; D Araújo; P S Giacomini; Y Lapierre; D L Arnold; G B Pike
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 7.  Brain imaging of neurovascular dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Axel Montagne; Daniel A Nation; Judy Pa; Melanie D Sweeney; Arthur W Toga; Berislav V Zlokovic
Journal:  Acta Neuropathol       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 17.088

Review 8.  MRI measurements of Blood-Brain Barrier function in dementia: A review of recent studies.

Authors:  Rajikha Raja; Gary A Rosenberg; Arvind Caprihan
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2017-10-28       Impact factor: 5.250

Review 9.  New approaches for precise response evaluation in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Koichi Hayano; Jorge M Fuentes-Orrego; Dushyant V Sahani
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  The use of dynamic tracer concentration in veins for quantitative DCE-MRI kinetic analysis in head and neck.

Authors:  Jing Yuan; Steven Kwok Keung Chow; Qinwei Zhang; David Ka Wai Yeung; Anil T Ahuja; Ann D King
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.