OBJECTIVE: We demonstrate the clinical use of an MR angiography sequence performed with sparse k-space sampling (MRA), as a method for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, and apply it to the assessment of sarcomas for treatment response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three subjects with sarcomas (2 with osteosarcoma, 1 with high-grade soft tissue sarcomas) underwent MRI after neoadjuvant therapy/prior to surgery, with conventional MRI (T1-weighted, fluid-sensitive, static post-contrast T1-weighted sequences) and DCE-MRI (MRA, time resolution = 7-10 s, TR/TE 2.4/0.9 ms, FOV 40 cm(2)). Images were reviewed by two observers in consensus who recorded image quality (1 = diagnostic, no significant artifacts, 2 = diagnostic, <25 % artifacts, 3 = nondiagnostic) and contrast enhancement characteristics by static MRI (presence/absence of contrast enhancement, percentage of enhancement) and DCE-MRI (presence/absence of arterial enhancement with time-intensity curves). Results were compared with histological response (defined as <5 % viable tumor [soft tissue sarcoma] or <10 % [bone sarcoma] following resection). RESULTS: Diagnostic quality for all conventional and DCE-MRI sequences was rated as 1. In 2 of the 3 sarcomas, there was good histological response (≤5 % viable tumor); in 1 there was poor response (50 % viable tumor). By static post-contrast T1-weighted sequences, there was enhancement in all sarcomas, regardless of response (up to >75 % with good response, >75 % with poor response). DCE-MRI findings were concordant with histological response (arterial enhancement with poor response, no arterial enhancement with good response). CONCLUSION: Unlike conventional DCE-MRI sequences, an MRA sequence with sparse k-space sampling is easily integrated into a routine musculoskeletal tumor MRI protocol, with high diagnostic quality. In this preliminary work, tumor enhancement characteristics by DCE-MRI were used to assess treatment response.
OBJECTIVE: We demonstrate the clinical use of an MR angiography sequence performed with sparse k-space sampling (MRA), as a method for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, and apply it to the assessment of sarcomas for treatment response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three subjects with sarcomas (2 with osteosarcoma, 1 with high-grade soft tissue sarcomas) underwent MRI after neoadjuvant therapy/prior to surgery, with conventional MRI (T1-weighted, fluid-sensitive, static post-contrast T1-weighted sequences) and DCE-MRI (MRA, time resolution = 7-10 s, TR/TE 2.4/0.9 ms, FOV 40 cm(2)). Images were reviewed by two observers in consensus who recorded image quality (1 = diagnostic, no significant artifacts, 2 = diagnostic, <25 % artifacts, 3 = nondiagnostic) and contrast enhancement characteristics by static MRI (presence/absence of contrast enhancement, percentage of enhancement) and DCE-MRI (presence/absence of arterial enhancement with time-intensity curves). Results were compared with histological response (defined as <5 % viable tumor [soft tissue sarcoma] or <10 % [bone sarcoma] following resection). RESULTS: Diagnostic quality for all conventional and DCE-MRI sequences was rated as 1. In 2 of the 3 sarcomas, there was good histological response (≤5 % viable tumor); in 1 there was poor response (50 % viable tumor). By static post-contrast T1-weighted sequences, there was enhancement in all sarcomas, regardless of response (up to >75 % with good response, >75 % with poor response). DCE-MRI findings were concordant with histological response (arterial enhancement with poor response, no arterial enhancement with good response). CONCLUSION: Unlike conventional DCE-MRI sequences, an MRA sequence with sparse k-space sampling is easily integrated into a routine musculoskeletal tumor MRI protocol, with high diagnostic quality. In this preliminary work, tumor enhancement characteristics by DCE-MRI were used to assess treatment response.
Authors: Katja Seng; Stefan Maderwald; Armin de Greiff; Harald H Quick; Gerhard Laub; Peter Schmitt; Jörg Barkhausen; Florian M Vogt Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Timothy R Donahue; Michael W Kattan; Scott D Nelson; William D Tap; Frederick R Eilber; Fritz C Eilber Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Catherina S P van Rijswijk; Maartje J A Geirnaerdt; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Johannes L Peterse; Frits van Coevorden; Antonie H M Taminiau; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Bin B R Kroon; Johan L Bloem Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-01-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andoni P Toms; Lawrence M White; Rita Kandel; Robert R Bleakney; Michael Noseworthy; Shepstone Lee; Martin E Blackstein; Jay Wunder Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Theodoros Soldatos; Shivani Ahlawat; Elizabeth Montgomery; Majid Chalian; Michael A Jacobs; Laura M Fayad Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 11.105