OBJECT: Phase-based arterial input functions (AIFs) provide a promising alternative to standard magnitude-based AIFs, for example, because inflow effects are avoided. The usefulness of phase-based AIFs in clinical dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) was investigated, and relevant pitfalls and sources of uncertainty were identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AIFs were registered from eight human subjects on, in total, 21 occasions. AIF quality was evaluated by comparing AIFs from right and left internal carotid arteries and by assessing the reliability of blood plasma volume estimates. RESULTS: Phase-based AIFs yielded an average bolus peak of 3.9 mM and a residual concentration of 0.37 mM after 3 min, (0.033 mmol/kg contrast agent injection). The average blood plasma volume was 2.7% when using the AIF peak in the estimation, but was significantly different (p < 0.0001) and less physiologically reasonable when based on the AIF tail concentration. Motion-induced phase shifts and accumulation of contrast agent in background tissue regions were identified as main sources of uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Phase-based AIFs are a feasible alternative to magnitude AIFs, but sources of errors exist, making quantification difficult, especially of the AIF tail. Improvement of the technique is feasible and also required for the phase-based AIF approach to reach its full potential.
OBJECT: Phase-based arterial input functions (AIFs) provide a promising alternative to standard magnitude-based AIFs, for example, because inflow effects are avoided. The usefulness of phase-based AIFs in clinical dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) was investigated, and relevant pitfalls and sources of uncertainty were identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AIFs were registered from eight human subjects on, in total, 21 occasions. AIF quality was evaluated by comparing AIFs from right and left internal carotid arteries and by assessing the reliability of blood plasma volume estimates. RESULTS: Phase-based AIFs yielded an average bolus peak of 3.9 mM and a residual concentration of 0.37 mM after 3 min, (0.033 mmol/kg contrast agent injection). The average blood plasma volume was 2.7% when using the AIF peak in the estimation, but was significantly different (p < 0.0001) and less physiologically reasonable when based on the AIF tail concentration. Motion-induced phase shifts and accumulation of contrast agent in background tissue regions were identified as main sources of uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Phase-based AIFs are a feasible alternative to magnitude AIFs, but sources of errors exist, making quantification difficult, especially of the AIF tail. Improvement of the technique is feasible and also required for the phase-based AIF approach to reach its full potential.
Authors: Terry S Yoo; Michael J Ackerman; William E Lorensen; Will Schroeder; Vikram Chalana; Stephen Aylward; Dimitris Metaxas; Ross Whitaker Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2002
Authors: Ludovic de Rochefort; Thanh Nguyen; Ryan Brown; Pascal Spincemaille; Grace Choi; Jonathan Weinsaft; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Thomas E Conturo; Erbil Akbudak; Melanie S Kotys; Maison L Chen; Steve J Chun; Raymond M Hsu; Caitlin C Sweeney; Joanne Markham Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Matthias J P van Osch; Evert-jan P A Vonken; Max A Viergever; Jeroen van der Grond; Chris J G Bakker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jia Ning; Tilman Schubert; Kevin M Johnson; Alejandro Roldán-Alzate; Huijun Chen; Chun Yuan; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: T B Nguyen; G O Cron; K Perdrizet; K Bezzina; C H Torres; S Chakraborty; J Woulfe; G H Jansen; J Sinclair; R E Thornhill; C Foottit; B Zanette; I G Cameron Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Edzo M E Klawer; Petra J van Houdt; Floris J Pos; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Matthias J P van Osch; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 4.044
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