PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different methods to convert magnetic resonance (MR) signal intensity (SI) to gadolinium concentration ([Gd]) on estimation and reproducibility of model-free and modeled hepatic perfusion parameters measured with dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved prospective study, 23 DCE-MRI examinations of the liver were performed on 17 patients. SI was converted to [Gd] using linearity vs. nonlinearity assumptions (using spoiled gradient recalled echo [SPGR] signal equations). The [Gd] vs. time curves were analyzed using model-free parameters and a dual-input single compartment model. Perfusion parameters obtained with the two conversion methods were compared using paired Wilcoxon test. Test-retest and interobserver reproducibility of perfusion parameters were assessed in six patients. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the two conversion methods for the following parameters: AUC60 (area under the curve at 60 s, P < 0.001), peak gadolinium concentration (Cpeak, P < 0.001), upslope (P < 0.001), Fp (portal flow, P = 0.04), total hepatic flow (Ft, P = 0.007), and MTT (mean transit time, P < 0.001). Our preliminary results showed acceptable to good reproducibility for all model-free parameters for both methods (mean coefficient of variation [CV] range, 11.87-23.7%), except for upslope (CV = 37%). Among modeled parameters, DV (distribution volume) had CV <22% with both methods, PV and MTT showed CV <21% and <29% using SPGR equations, respectively. Other modeled parameters had CV >30% with both methods. CONCLUSION: Linearity assumption is acceptable for quantification of model-free hepatic perfusion parameters while the use of SPGR equations and T1 mapping may be recommended for the quantification of modeled hepatic perfusion parameters.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different methods to convert magnetic resonance (MR) signal intensity (SI) to gadolinium concentration ([Gd]) on estimation and reproducibility of model-free and modeled hepatic perfusion parameters measured with dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved prospective study, 23 DCE-MRI examinations of the liver were performed on 17 patients. SI was converted to [Gd] using linearity vs. nonlinearity assumptions (using spoiled gradient recalled echo [SPGR] signal equations). The [Gd] vs. time curves were analyzed using model-free parameters and a dual-input single compartment model. Perfusion parameters obtained with the two conversion methods were compared using paired Wilcoxon test. Test-retest and interobserver reproducibility of perfusion parameters were assessed in six patients. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the two conversion methods for the following parameters: AUC60 (area under the curve at 60 s, P < 0.001), peak gadolinium concentration (Cpeak, P < 0.001), upslope (P < 0.001), Fp (portal flow, P = 0.04), total hepatic flow (Ft, P = 0.007), and MTT (mean transit time, P < 0.001). Our preliminary results showed acceptable to good reproducibility for all model-free parameters for both methods (mean coefficient of variation [CV] range, 11.87-23.7%), except for upslope (CV = 37%). Among modeled parameters, DV (distribution volume) had CV <22% with both methods, PV and MTT showed CV <21% and <29% using SPGR equations, respectively. Other modeled parameters had CV >30% with both methods. CONCLUSION: Linearity assumption is acceptable for quantification of model-free hepatic perfusion parameters while the use of SPGR equations and T1 mapping may be recommended for the quantification of modeled hepatic perfusion parameters.
Authors: G J Parker; J Suckling; S F Tanner; A R Padhani; P B Revell; J E Husband; M O Leach Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1997 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Susan M Galbraith; Martin A Lodge; N Jane Taylor; Gordon J S Rustin; Søren Bentzen; J James Stirling; Anwar R Padhani Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Laurence Annet; Roland Materne; Etienne Danse; Jacques Jamart; Yves Horsmans; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Milica Medved; Greg Karczmar; Cheng Yang; James Dignam; Thomas F Gajewski; Hedy Kindler; Everett Vokes; Peter MacEneany; Myrosia T Mitchell; Walter M Stadler Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Bernard E Van Beers; Roland Materne; Laurence Annet; Laurent Hermoye; Christine Sempoux; Frank Peeters; Anne M Smith; Jacques Jamart; Yves Horsmans Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Octavia Bane; Stefanie J Hectors; Mathilde Wagner; Lori L Arlinghaus; Madhava P Aryal; Yue Cao; Thomas L Chenevert; Fiona Fennessy; Wei Huang; Nola M Hylton; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Kathryn E Keenan; Dariya I Malyarenko; Robert V Mulkern; David C Newitt; Stephen E Russek; Karl F Stupic; Alina Tudorica; Lisa J Wilmes; Thomas E Yankeelov; Yi-Fei Yen; Michael A Boss; Bachir Taouli Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Nicole Wake; Hersh Chandarana; Henry Rusinek; Koji Fujimoto; Linda Moy; Daniel K Sodickson; Sungheon Gene Kim Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 2.546