PURPOSE: Using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in a rat glioma model, and nested model selection (NMS), to compare estimates of the pharmacokinetic parameters vp , K(trans) , and ve for two different contrast agents (CAs)-gadofosveset, which reversibly binds to human serum albumin, and gadopentetate dimeglumine, which does not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DCE-MRI studies were performed on nine Fisher 344 rats inoculated intracerebrally with 9L gliosarcoma cells using both gadofosveset and gadopentetate. The parameters vp , K(trans) , and ve were estimated using NMS. RESULTS: K(trans) estimates using gadofosveset, compared to gadopentetate, differed in their means (gadofosveset 0.025 ± 0.008 min(-1) vs. gadopentetate 0.046 ± 0.011 min(-1) ; P = 0.0039). This difference notwithstanding, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the two estimates of K(trans) showed nearly perfect linear dependence (ICC = 0.8479 by Pearson's r). Other estimates, ve (gadofosveset 22.7 ± 4.7% vs. gadopentetate 23.6 ± 5.6%; P = 0.4258) and vp (gadofosveset 1.5 ± 0.5% vs. gadopentetate 1.6 ± 0.4%; P = 0.25), were not different in their means between the two CAs, and there was almost perfect agreement for ve (ICC = 0.8798) and substantial agreement for vp (ICC = 0.7981) between the two CAs. CONCLUSION: Estimates of K(trans) were statistically different using gadofosveset and gadopentetate, whereas ve and vp were similar with two CAs. NMS produced robust estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters using DCE-MRI that show promise as important measures of tumor physiology and microenvironment.
PURPOSE: Using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in a ratglioma model, and nested model selection (NMS), to compare estimates of the pharmacokinetic parameters vp , K(trans) , and ve for two different contrast agents (CAs)-gadofosveset, which reversibly binds to human serum albumin, and gadopentetate dimeglumine, which does not. MATERIALS AND METHODS:DCE-MRI studies were performed on nine Fisher 344 rats inoculated intracerebrally with 9L gliosarcoma cells using both gadofosveset and gadopentetate. The parameters vp , K(trans) , and ve were estimated using NMS. RESULTS: K(trans) estimates using gadofosveset, compared to gadopentetate, differed in their means (gadofosveset 0.025 ± 0.008 min(-1) vs. gadopentetate 0.046 ± 0.011 min(-1) ; P = 0.0039). This difference notwithstanding, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the two estimates of K(trans) showed nearly perfect linear dependence (ICC = 0.8479 by Pearson's r). Other estimates, ve (gadofosveset 22.7 ± 4.7% vs. gadopentetate 23.6 ± 5.6%; P = 0.4258) and vp (gadofosveset 1.5 ± 0.5% vs. gadopentetate 1.6 ± 0.4%; P = 0.25), were not different in their means between the two CAs, and there was almost perfect agreement for ve (ICC = 0.8798) and substantial agreement for vp (ICC = 0.7981) between the two CAs. CONCLUSION: Estimates of K(trans) were statistically different using gadofosveset and gadopentetate, whereas ve and vp were similar with two CAs. NMS produced robust estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters using DCE-MRI that show promise as important measures of tumor physiology and microenvironment.
Authors: Peter Caravan; Normand J Cloutier; Matthew T Greenfield; Sarah A McDermid; Stephen U Dunham; Jeff W M Bulte; John C Amedio; Richard J Looby; Ronald M Supkowski; William DeW Horrocks; Thomas J McMurry; Randall B Lauffer Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2002-03-27 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Marleen Verhoye; Boudewijn P J van der Sanden; Paul F J W Rijken; Hans P W Peters; Albert J Van der Kogel; Gilke Pée; Greetje Vanhoutte; Arend Heerschap; Annemie Van der Linden Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: H Daldrup; D M Shames; M Wendland; Y Okuhata; T M Link; W Rosenau; Y Lu; R C Brasch Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: H Nakagawa; D R Groothuis; E S Owens; J D Fenstermacher; C S Patlak; R G Blasberg Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 1987-12 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Matthias Bruehlmeier; Ulrich Roelcke; Peter Bläuenstein; John Missimer; Pius A Schubiger; Johannes Th Locher; Raimo Pellikka; Simon M Ametamey Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael Pedersen; Pietro Irrera; Walter Dastrù; Frank G Zöllner; Kevin M Bennett; Scott C Beeman; G Larry Bretthorst; Joel R Garbow; Dario Livio Longo Journal: Methods Mol Biol Date: 2021
Authors: Chong Duan; Jesper F Kallehauge; G Larry Bretthorst; Kari Tanderup; Joseph J H Ackerman; Joel R Garbow Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S Shaaban; M Alsulami; S A Arbab; R Ara; A Shankar; A Iskander; K Angara; M Jain; H Bagher-Ebadian; B R Achyut; A S Arbab Journal: Int J Cancer Res Date: 2016-03-15
Authors: Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Rasha Elmghirbi; Stephen L Brown; Julian A Rey; Lonni Schultz; Abir Mukherjee; Glauber Cabral; Swayamprava Panda; Ian Y Lee; Malisa Sarntinoranont; Kelly A Keenan; Robert A Knight; James R Ewing Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-04-04 Impact factor: 4.044