Literature DB >> 21305599

Effects of inflow and radiofrequency spoiling on the arterial input function in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a combined phantom and simulation study.

Anders Garpebring1, Ronnie Wirestam, Nils Ostlund, Mikael Karlsson.   

Abstract

The arterial input function is crucial in pharmacokinetic analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data. Among other artifacts in arterial input function quantification, the blood inflow effect and nonideal radiofrequency spoiling can induce large measurement errors with subsequent reduction of accuracy in the pharmacokinetic parameters. These errors were investigated for a 3D spoiled gradient-echo sequence using a pulsatile flow phantom and a total of 144 typical imaging settings. In the presence of large inflow effects, results showed poor average accuracy and large spread between imaging settings, when the standard spoiled gradient-echo signal equation was used in the analysis. For example, one of the investigated inflow conditions resulted in a mean error of about 40% and a spread, given by the coefficient of variation, of 20% for K(trans). Minimizing inflow effects by appropriate slice placement, combined with compensation for nonideal radiofrequency spoiling, significantly improved the results, but they remained poorer than without flow (e.g., 3-4 times larger coefficient of variation for K(trans)). It was concluded that the 3D spoiled gradient-echo sequence is not optimal for accurate arterial input function quantification and that correction for nonideal radiofrequency spoiling in combination with inflow minimizing slice placement should be used to reduce the errors.
Copyright © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21305599     DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22760

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


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of ASL and DCE MRI for the non-invasive measurement of renal blood flow: quantification and reproducibility.

Authors:  Marica Cutajar; David L Thomas; Patrick W Hales; T Banks; Christopher A Clark; Isky Gordon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and quantitative SPECT in a rat glioma model.

Authors:  Jack T Skinner; Thomas E Yankeelov; Todd E Peterson; Mark D Does
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.161

3.  Phase-based arterial input functions in humans applied to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: potential usefulness and limitations.

Authors:  Anders Garpebring; Ronnie Wirestam; Jun Yu; Thomas Asklund; Mikael Karlsson
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2011-05-29       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  Surrogate vascular input function measurements from the superior sagittal sinus are repeatable and provide tissue-validated kinetic parameters in brain DCE-MRI.

Authors:  Daniel Lewis; Xiaoping Zhu; David J Coope; Sha Zhao; Andrew T King; Timothy Cootes; Alan Jackson; Ka-Loh Li
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  Improved repeatability of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using the complex MRI signal to derive arterial input functions: a test-retest study in prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Edzo M E Klawer; Petra J van Houdt; Frank F J Simonis; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Floris J Pos; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Sofie Isebaert; Karin Haustermans; Uulke A van der Heide
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 4.668

6.  Phantom Validation of DCE-MRI Magnitude and Phase-Based Vascular Input Function Measurements.

Authors:  Warren Foltz; Brandon Driscoll; Sangjune Laurence Lee; Krishna Nayak; Naren Nallapareddy; Ali Fatemi; Cynthia Ménard; Catherine Coolens; Caroline Chung
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2019-03

7.  Quantifying MRI T1 relaxation in flowing blood: implications for arterial input function measurement in DCE-MRI.

Authors:  Matthew N Gwilliam; David J Collins; Martin O Leach; Matthew R Orton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 3.039

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.