Literature DB >> 22513074

The effect of temporal sampling on quantitative pharmacokinetic and three-time-point analysis of breast DCE-MRI.

Jacob U Fluckiger1, Matthias C Schabel, Edward V R Dibella.   

Abstract

The effects of temporal sampling on the previously published three-time-point (3TP) method are compared with those of a Tofts-Kety model using an arterial input function from the alternating minimization with model (AMM) method. Computer simulations are done to estimate the expected error in both the 3TP and Tofts-Kety models as a function of the temporal sampling rate of the data. The error in the 3TP model parameters remained essentially constant with respect to temporal sampling. The Tofts-Kety model showed a linear increase in parameter error with respect to temporal sampling. Both analysis methods were also applied to 87 clinically acquired breast scans. These scans were downsampled in time by a factor of 2 and 4, and the methods were reapplied. The spatial resolution was held constant throughout this study. At temporal resolutions less than 19.4 s, the Tofts-Kety model outperformed the 3TP model using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (area under the ROC curve [AUC] of 0.94 compared to 0.91). As the temporal sampling rate decreased, the 3TP model outperformed the Tofts-Kety model (AUC of 0.89 versus 0.85). When the temporal sampling rate of the data was less than 20 s, the Tofts-Kety model with the AMM method had lower parameter error than the 3TP method.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22513074     DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.02.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 0730-725X            Impact factor:   2.546


  6 in total

1.  Identifying in vivo DCE MRI markers associated with microvessel architecture and gleason grades of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Asha Singanamalli; Mirabela Rusu; Rachel E Sparks; Natalie N C Shih; Amy Ziober; Li-Ping Wang; John Tomaszewski; Mark Rosen; Michael Feldman; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Is there any correlation between model-based perfusion parameters and model-free parameters of time-signal intensity curve on dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in breast cancer patients?

Authors:  Boram Yi; Doo Kyoung Kang; Dukyong Yoon; Yong Sik Jung; Ku Sang Kim; Hyunee Yim; Tae Hee Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Standardization of radiological evaluation of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI: application in breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  E Furman-Haran; M Shapiro Feinberg; D Badikhi; E Eyal; T Zehavi; H Degani
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-08-31

4.  Quantitative estimation of renal function with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using a modified two-compartment model.

Authors:  Bin Chen; Yudong Zhang; Xiaojian Song; Xiaoying Wang; Jue Zhang; Jing Fang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Prediction of low-risk breast cancer using quantitative DCE-MRI and its pathological basis.

Authors:  Tingting Xu; Lin Zhang; Hong Xu; Sifeng Kang; Yali Xu; Xiaoyu Luo; Ting Hua; Guangyu Tang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-11-01

Review 6.  How to use the Kaiser score as a clinical decision rule for diagnosis in multiparametric breast MRI: a pictorial essay.

Authors:  Matthias Dietzel; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-04-03
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.