Literature DB >> 21852570

Tumoral and nontumoral pancreas: correlation between quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and histopathologic parameters.

Maria A Bali1, Thierry Metens, Vincent Denolin, Myriam Delhaye, Pieter Demetter, Jean Closset, Celso Matos.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine whether dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) quantitative parameters correlate with fibrosis and microvascular density (MVD) in malignant and benign solid pancreatic focal lesions and nontumoral pancreatic tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved the study; written informed consent was obtained. DCE MR was performed in 28 patients with surgically resectable focal pancreatic lesions. DCE MR quantitative parameters derived from one-compartment (OC) (transfer rate constant [K(trans)] and distribution fraction [ƒ]) and two-compartment (TC) (K(trans), tissue volume fraction occupied by extravascular extracellular space [v(i)], and tissue volume fraction occupied by vascular space [v(p)]) pharmacokinetic models were correlated with fibrosis content and MVD counts in focal lesions and nontumoral tissue (Spearman correlation coefficient [SCC]). Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared (Mann-Whitney test) between tumoral and nontumoral tissue. Diagnostic performance of DCE MR fibrosis detection was assessed (receiver operator characteristic curve analysis).
RESULTS: K(trans) OC and K(trans) TC were significantly lower in primary malignant tumors compared with benign lesions (P = .023) and nontumoral pancreatic tissue downstream (P < .001) and upstream (P = .006); ƒ and v(i) were significantly higher in primary malignant tumors compared with nontumoral pancreatic tissue downstream (P = .012 and .018, respectively). Fibrosis was correlated negatively with K(trans) OC (SCC, -0.600) and K(trans) TC (SCC, -0.564) and positively with ƒ (SCC, 0.514) and v(i) (SCC, 0.464), with P < .001 (all comparisons). MVD was positively correlated with ƒ (SCC, 0.355; P = .019) and v(i) (SCC, 0.297; P = .038) but not with K(trans) OC (SCC, -0.140; P = .33) and K(trans) TC (SCC, -0.194; P = .181). Sensitivity and specificity for fibrosis detection were 65% (24 of 37) and 83% (10 of 12) for K(trans) OC (cutoff value, 0.35 min(-1)) and 76% (28 of 37) and 83% (10 of 12) for K(trans) TC (cutoff value, 0.29 min(-1)), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Quantitative DCE MR parameters, derived from pharmacokinetic models in malignant and benign pancreatic solid lesions and nontumoral pancreatic tissue, were significantly correlated with fibrosis and MVD. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11103515/-/DC1. RSNA, 2011

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21852570     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11103515

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  34 in total

1.  Dynamic non-invasive ASL perfusion imaging of a normal pancreas with secretin augmented MR imaging.

Authors:  Khoschy Schawkat; Michael Ith; Andreas Christe; Wolfgang Kühn; Yojena Chittazhathu; Lauren Bains; Val Murray Runge; Johannes T Heverhagen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  New challenges in perioperative management of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Francesco Puleo; Raphaël Maréchal; Pieter Demetter; Maria-Antonietta Bali; Annabelle Calomme; Jean Closset; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Jacques Deviere; Jean-Luc Van Laethem
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Magnetization transfer MRI in pancreatic cancer xenograft models.

Authors:  Weiguo Li; Zhuoli Zhang; Jodi Nicolai; Guang-Yu Yang; Reed A Omary; Andrew C Larson
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Advances in Biomedical Imaging, Bioengineering, and Related Technologies for the Development of Biomarkers of Pancreatic Disease: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Workshop.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kelly; Michael A Hollingsworth; Randall E Brand; Christina H Liu; Vikesh K Singh; Sudhir Srivastava; Ajay D Wasan; Dhiraj Yadav; Dana K Andersen
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.327

5.  Extracellular volume fraction determined by equilibrium contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography as a prognostic factor in unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with chemotherapy.

Authors:  Yoshihiko Fukukura; Yuichi Kumagae; Ryutaro Higashi; Hiroto Hakamada; Koji Takumi; Kosei Maemura; Michiyo Higashi; Kiyohisa Kamimura; Masanori Nakajo; Takashi Yoshiura
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Prognostication and response assessment in liver and pancreatic tumors: The new imaging.

Authors:  Riccardo De Robertis; Paolo Tinazzi Martini; Emanuele Demozzi; Gino Puntel; Silvia Ortolani; Sara Cingarlini; Andrea Ruzzenente; Alfredo Guglielmi; Giampaolo Tortora; Claudio Bassi; Paolo Pederzoli; Mirko D'Onofrio
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Dual energy CT applications in pancreatic pathologies.

Authors:  Elizabeth George; Jeremy R Wortman; Urvi P Fulwadhva; Jennifer W Uyeda; Aaron D Sodickson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 8.  Quantitative pancreatic MRI: a pathology-based review.

Authors:  Manil D Chouhan; Louisa Firmin; Samantha Read; Zahir Amin; Stuart A Taylor
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Pancreatic cancer: why is it so hard to treat?

Authors:  Paul E Oberstein; Kenneth P Olive
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 10.  Imaging diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: a state-of-the-art review.

Authors:  Eun Sun Lee; Jeong Min Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.