Literature DB >> 22417064

Reproducibility and comparison of DCE-MRI and DCE-CT perfusion parameters in a rat tumor model.

Chaan S Ng1, John C Waterton, Vikas Kundra, David Brammer, Murali Ravoori, Lin Han, Wei Wei, Sherry Klumpp, Valen E Johnson, Edward F Jackson.   

Abstract

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and computed tomography (DCE-CT) provide independent measures of biomarkers related to tumor perfusion. We compared the reproducibilities and absolute values of DCE-MRI and DCE-CT biomarkers in the same tumors in an animal model, to investigate the physiologic validity of both approaches. DCE-MRI and DCE-CT were each performed sequentially on three consecutive days in each of twelve rats bearing C6 glioma xenografts. DCE-MRI yielded endothelial transfer constant (K(trans)), extracellular, extravascular space volume fraction (v(e)), and contrast agent reflux rate constant (k(ep)); and DCE-CT, blood flow (BF), blood volume (BV), mean transit time (MTT), and permeability-surface area product (PS) using Tofts and deconvolution physiological models, with 6.6 and 0.4 seconds temporal resolutions, respectively. Variability in DCE-CT and DCE-MRI were evaluated by variance components analysis. Intra-rat coefficients of variation for DCE-CT parameters BF, BV, MTT and PS were 25%, 22%, 18% and 23%; and for DCE-MRI parameters K(trans), k(ep) and v(e) were 23%, 16% and 20%, respectively. Mean (±SD) BF, BV, MTT and PS were: 44.6 (±13.7) ml min(-1) 100 g(-1), 5.7 (±1.5) ml 100 g(-1), 10.8 (±2.3) seconds, and 14.6 (±4.7) ml min(-1) 100 g(-1), respectively. Mean (±SD) K(trans), k(ep) and v(e) were: 0.21 (±0.05) min(-1), 0.68 (±0.14) min(-1), and 0.29 (±0.06), respectively. Permeability estimates from DCE-MRI (K(trans)) were 44% higher than from DCE-CT (PS), despite application of appropriate corrections. DCE-MRI and DCE-CT biomarkers of tumor perfusion have similar reproducibilities suggesting that they may have comparable utility, but their derived parameter values are not equivalent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22417064     DOI: 10.7785/tcrt.2012.500296

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 1533-0338


  13 in total

Review 1.  Functional MRI and CT biomarkers in oncology.

Authors:  J M Winfield; G S Payne; N M deSouza
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Unified platform for multimodal voxel-based analysis to evaluate tumour perfusion and diffusion characteristics before and after radiation treatment evaluated in metastatic brain cancer.

Authors:  Catherine Coolens; Brandon Driscoll; Warren Foltz; Igor Svistoun; Noha Sinno; Caroline Chung
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Translating preclinical MRI methods to clinical oncology.

Authors:  David A Hormuth; Anna G Sorace; John Virostko; Richard G Abramson; Zaver M Bhujwalla; Pedro Enriquez-Navas; Robert Gillies; John D Hazle; Ralph P Mason; C Chad Quarles; Jared A Weis; Jennifer G Whisenant; Junzhong Xu; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Intratumor distribution and test-retest comparisons of physiological parameters quantified by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in rat U251 glioma.

Authors:  Madhava P Aryal; Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Stephen L Brown; Mei Lu; Hassan Bagher-Ebadian; Guangliang Ding; Swayamprava Panda; Kelly Keenan; Glauber Cabral; Tom Mikkelsen; James R Ewing
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 4.044

5.  Robust and efficient pharmacokinetic parameter non-linear least squares estimation for dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the prostate.

Authors:  Soudabeh Kargar; Eric A Borisch; Adam T Froemming; Akira Kawashima; Lance A Mynderse; Eric G Stinson; Joshua D Trzasko; Stephen J Riederer
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-12-24       Impact factor: 2.546

6.  Multiscale and multi-modality visualization of angiogenesis in a human breast cancer model.

Authors:  Jana Cebulla; Eugene Kim; Kevin Rhie; Jiangyang Zhang; Arvind P Pathak
Journal:  Angiogenesis       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 9.596

7.  Dependence of DCE-MRI biomarker values on analysis algorithm.

Authors:  Chaan S Ng; Wei Wei; James A Bankson; Murali K Ravoori; Lin Han; David W Brammer; Sherry Klumpp; John C Waterton; Edward F Jackson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Test-Retest Performance of a 1-Hour Multiparametric MR Image Acquisition Pipeline With Orthotopic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patient-Derived Tumor Xenografts.

Authors:  Xia Ge; James D Quirk; John A Engelbach; G Larry Bretthorst; Shunqiang Li; Kooresh I Shoghi; Joel R Garbow; Joseph J H Ackerman
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2019-09

9.  Practical dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in small animal models of cancer: data acquisition, data analysis, and interpretation.

Authors:  Stephanie L Barnes; Jennifer G Whisenant; Mary E Loveless; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 6.321

10.  Comparison of Voxel-Wise Tumor Perfusion Changes Measured With Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) MRI and Volumetric DCE CT in Patients With Metastatic Brain Cancer Treated with Radiosurgery.

Authors:  Catherine Coolens; Brandon Driscoll; Warren Foltz; Carly Pellow; Cynthia Menard; Caroline Chung
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2016-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.