PURPOSE: To develop a dynamic lesion phantom that is capable of producing physiological kinetic curves representative of those seen in human dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) data. The objective of this phantom is to provide a platform for the quantitative comparison of DCE-MRI protocols to aid in the standardization and optimization of breast DCE-MRI. METHODS: The dynamic lesion consists of a hollow, plastic mold with inlet and outlet tubes to allow flow of a contrast agent solution through the lesion over time. Border shape of the lesion can be controlled using the lesion mold production method. The configuration of the inlet and outlet tubes was determined using fluid transfer simulations. The total fluid flow rate was determined using x-ray images of the lesion for four different flow rates (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 ml/s) to evaluate the resultant kinetic curve shape and homogeneity of the contrast agent distribution in the dynamic lesion. High spatial and temporal resolution x-ray measurements were used to estimate the true kinetic curve behavior in the dynamic lesion for benign and malignant example curves. DCE-MRI example data were acquired of the dynamic phantom using a clinical protocol. RESULTS: The optimal inlet and outlet tube configuration for the lesion molds was two inlet molds separated by 30° and a single outlet tube directly between the two inlet tubes. X-ray measurements indicated that 1.0 ml/s was an appropriate total fluid flow rate and provided truth for comparison with MRI data of kinetic curves representative of benign and malignant lesions. DCE-MRI data demonstrated the ability of the phantom to produce realistic kinetic curves. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have constructed a dynamic lesion phantom, demonstrated its ability to produce physiological kinetic curves, and provided estimations of its true kinetic curve behavior. This lesion phantom provides a tool for the quantitative evaluation of DCE-MRI protocols, which may lead to improved discrimination of breast cancer lesions.
PURPOSE: To develop a dynamic lesion phantom that is capable of producing physiological kinetic curves representative of those seen in human dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) data. The objective of this phantom is to provide a platform for the quantitative comparison of DCE-MRI protocols to aid in the standardization and optimization of breast DCE-MRI. METHODS: The dynamic lesion consists of a hollow, plastic mold with inlet and outlet tubes to allow flow of a contrast agent solution through the lesion over time. Border shape of the lesion can be controlled using the lesion mold production method. The configuration of the inlet and outlet tubes was determined using fluid transfer simulations. The total fluid flow rate was determined using x-ray images of the lesion for four different flow rates (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 ml/s) to evaluate the resultant kinetic curve shape and homogeneity of the contrast agent distribution in the dynamic lesion. High spatial and temporal resolution x-ray measurements were used to estimate the true kinetic curve behavior in the dynamic lesion for benign and malignant example curves. DCE-MRI example data were acquired of the dynamic phantom using a clinical protocol. RESULTS: The optimal inlet and outlet tube configuration for the lesion molds was two inlet molds separated by 30° and a single outlet tube directly between the two inlet tubes. X-ray measurements indicated that 1.0 ml/s was an appropriate total fluid flow rate and provided truth for comparison with MRI data of kinetic curves representative of benign and malignant lesions. DCE-MRI data demonstrated the ability of the phantom to produce realistic kinetic curves. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have constructed a dynamic lesion phantom, demonstrated its ability to produce physiological kinetic curves, and provided estimations of its true kinetic curve behavior. This lesion phantom provides a tool for the quantitative evaluation of DCE-MRI protocols, which may lead to improved discrimination of breast cancer lesions.
Authors: S H Heywang-Köbrunner; U Bick; W G Bradley; B Boné; J Casselman; A Coulthard; U Fischer; M Müller-Schimpfle; H Oellinger; R Patt; J Teubner; M Friedrich; G Newstead; R Holland; A Schauer; E A Sickles; L Tabar; J Waisman; K D Wernecke Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2001 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: D M Ikeda; N M Hylton; K Kinkel; M G Hochman; C K Kuhl; W A Kaiser; J C Weinreb; S F Smazal; H Degani; P Viehweg; J Barclay; M D Schnall Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Marko K Ivancevic; Ivan Zimine; Xavier Montet; Jean-Noel Hyacinthe; François Lazeyras; David Foxall; Jean-Paul Vallée Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Harrison Kim; Mina Mousa; Patrick Schexnailder; Robert Hergenrother; Mark Bolding; Bernard Ntsikoussalabongui; Vinoy Thomas; Desiree E Morgan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Merina Elahi; Noha Eshera; Nkosazana Bambata; Helen Barr; Beverly Lyn-Cook; Julie Beitz; Maria Rios; Deborah R Taylor; Marilyn Lightfoote; Nada Hanafi; Lowri DeJager; Paddy Wiesenfeld; Pamela E Scott; Emmanuel O Fadiran; Marsha B Henderson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 2.681