Literature DB >> 24593738

An analysis of the uncertainty and bias in DCE-MRI measurements using the spoiled gradient-recalled echo pulse sequence.

Ergys Subashi1, Kingshuk R Choudhury2, G Allan Johnson3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The pharmacokinetic parameters derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI have been used in more than 100 phase I trials and investigator led studies. A comparison of the absolute values of these quantities requires an estimation of their respective probability distribution function (PDF). The statistical variation of the DCE-MRI measurement is analyzed by considering the fundamental sources of error in the MR signal intensity acquired with the spoiled gradient-echo (SPGR) pulse sequence.
METHODS: The variance in the SPGR signal intensity arises from quadrature detection and excitation flip angle inconsistency. The noise power was measured in 11 phantoms of contrast agent concentration in the range [0-1] mM (in steps of 0.1 mM) and in onein vivo acquisition of a tumor-bearing mouse. The distribution of the flip angle was determined in a uniform 10 mM CuSO4 phantom using the spin echo double angle method. The PDF of a wide range of T1 values measured with the varying flip angle (VFA) technique was estimated through numerical simulations of the SPGR equation. The resultant uncertainty in contrast agent concentration was incorporated in the most common model of tracer exchange kinetics and the PDF of the derived pharmacokinetic parameters was studied numerically.
RESULTS: The VFA method is an unbiased technique for measuringT1 only in the absence of bias in excitation flip angle. The time-dependent concentration of the contrast agent measured in vivo is within the theoretically predicted uncertainty. The uncertainty in measuring K(trans) with SPGR pulse sequences is of the same order, but always higher than, the uncertainty in measuring the pre-injection longitudinal relaxation time (T10). The lowest achievable bias/uncertainty in estimating this parameter is approximately 20%-70% higher than the bias/uncertainty in the measurement of the pre-injection T1 map. The fractional volume parameters derived from the extended Tofts model were found to be extremely sensitive to the variance in signal intensity. The SNR of the pre-injection T1 map indicates the limiting precision with which K(trans) can be calculated.
CONCLUSIONS: Current small-animal imaging systems and pulse sequences robust to motion artifacts have the capacity for reproducible quantitative acquisitions with DCE-MRI. In these circumstances, it is feasible to achieve a level of precision limited only by physiologic variability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24593738      PMCID: PMC3978390          DOI: 10.1118/1.4865790

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  22 in total

1.  Determination of the MRI contrast agent concentration time course in vivo following bolus injection: effect of equilibrium transcytolemmal water exchange.

Authors:  C S Landis; X Li; F W Telang; J A Coderre; P L Micca; W D Rooney; L L Latour; G Vétek; I Pályka; C S Springer
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  Rapid combined T1 and T2 mapping using gradient recalled acquisition in the steady state.

Authors:  Sean C L Deoni; Brian K Rutt; Terry M Peters
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Efficient method for calculating kinetic parameters using T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Kenya Murase
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 4.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical trials of antivascular therapies.

Authors:  James P B O'Connor; Alan Jackson; Geoff J M Parker; Caleb Roberts; Gordon C Jayson
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  The NMR phased array.

Authors:  P B Roemer; W A Edelstein; C E Hayes; S P Souza; O M Mueller
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 4.668

6.  A quantitative comparison of the influence of individual versus population-derived vascular input functions on dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI in small animals.

Authors:  Mary E Loveless; Jane Halliday; Carsten Liess; Lei Xu; Richard D Dortch; Jennifer Whisenant; John C Waterton; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 4.668

7.  The Rician distribution of noisy MRI data.

Authors:  H Gudbjartsson; S Patz
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.668

8.  Measurement of signal intensities in the presence of noise in MR images.

Authors:  R M Henkelman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1985 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  A comparison of radial keyhole strategies for high spatial and temporal resolution 4D contrast-enhanced MRI in small animal tumor models.

Authors:  Ergys Subashi; Everett J Moding; Gary P Cofer; James R MacFall; David G Kirsch; Yi Qi; G Allan Johnson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Assessing the reproducibility of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in a murine model of breast cancer.

Authors:  Stephanie L Barnes; Jennifer G Whisenant; Mary E Loveless; Gregory D Ayers; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 4.668

View more
  7 in total

1.  Impact of uncertainty in longitudinal T1 measurements on quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Madhava P Aryal; Thomas L Chenevert; Yue Cao
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 4.044

2.  Evaluation of the effect of transcytolemmal water exchange analysis for therapeutic response assessment using DCE-MRI: a comparison study.

Authors:  Chunhao Wang; Ergys Subashi; Xiao Liang; Fang-Fang Yin; Zheng Chang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR microscopy identifies regions of therapeutic response in a preclinical model of colorectal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Ergys Subashi; Yi Qi; G Allan Johnson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Accelerated Brain DCE-MRI Using Iterative Reconstruction With Total Generalized Variation Penalty for Quantitative Pharmacokinetic Analysis: A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Chunhao Wang; Fang-Fang Yin; John P Kirkpatrick; Zheng Chang
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-05-23

5.  Dynamic fractal signature dissimilarity analysis for therapeutic response assessment using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Chunhao Wang; Ergys Subashi; Fang-Fang Yin; Zheng Chang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging quantification of leukemia-induced changes in bone marrow vascular function.

Authors:  Ana L Gomes; John Gribben; Bernard Siow; Diana Passaro; Dominique Bonnet
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 9.941

7.  Longitudinal assessment of quality assurance measurements in a 1.5 T MR-linac: Part II-Magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ergys Subashi; Alex Dresner; Neelam Tyagi
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 2.243

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.