J T Skinner1, P L Moots2, G D Ayers3, C C Quarles4. 1. From the Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (J.T.S., C.C.Q.) Departments of Radiology and Radiological Sciences (J.T.S., C.C.Q.). 2. Neurology (P.L.M.). 3. Biostatistics (G.D.A.), Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. From the Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (J.T.S., C.C.Q.) Departments of Cancer Biology (C.C.Q.) Biomedical Engineering (C.C.Q.), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Departments of Radiology and Radiological Sciences (J.T.S., C.C.Q.) christopher.quarles@dignityhealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Contrast agent extravasation has been shown to confound brain tumor perfusion measurements with DSC-MR imaging, necessitating the use of correction techniques (eg, Weisskoff, Bjornerud). Leakage parameters (K2 and K(a)) postulated to reflect vessel permeability can be extracted from these correction methods; however, the biophysical interpretation of these parameters and their relationship to commonly used MR imaging measures of vascular permeability (eg, contrast agent volume transfer constant, [K(trans)]) remain unclear. Given that vascular density, as assessed by blood volume, and vascular permeability, as reflected by K(trans) (and potentially K2 or K(a)), report on unique and clinically informative vascular characteristics, there is a compelling interest to simultaneously assess these features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We acquired multiecho DSC-MR imaging data, allowing the simultaneous computation and voxelwise comparison of single- and dual-echo derived measures of K2, K(a) and K(trans) in patients with glioma. This acquisition enabled the investigation of competing T1 and T2* leakage effects and TE dependency on these parameters. RESULTS: K2 and K(a) displayed nonsignificant (P = .150 and P = .060, respectively) voxelwise linear correlations with K(trans), while a significant (P < .001) inverse relationship was observed between K2 and Ka (coefficient of determination [r(2)] = 0.466-0.984). Significantly different (P < .005) mean estimates were found between voxels exhibiting predominately T1 and T2* effects for K2 and K(a). K(trans), however, was observed to be similar between these voxels (0.109 versus 0.092 minutes(-1)). Significant differences (P < .001) in extracellular-extravascular volume fraction (v(e)) (0.285 versus 0.167) were also observed between cohorts. Additionally, K2 and K(a) were found to have a significant quadratic relationship (P = .031 and P = .005, respectively) with v(e). CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of vascular permeability in brain tumors may be simultaneously acquired from multiple-echo DSC-MR imaging via K(trans); however, caution should be used in assuming a similar relationship for K2 and K(a).
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Contrast agent extravasation has been shown to confound brain tumor perfusion measurements with DSC-MR imaging, necessitating the use of correction techniques (eg, Weisskoff, Bjornerud). Leakage parameters (K2 and K(a)) postulated to reflect vessel permeability can be extracted from these correction methods; however, the biophysical interpretation of these parameters and their relationship to commonly used MR imaging measures of vascular permeability (eg, contrast agent volume transfer constant, [K(trans)]) remain unclear. Given that vascular density, as assessed by blood volume, and vascular permeability, as reflected by K(trans) (and potentially K2 or K(a)), report on unique and clinically informative vascular characteristics, there is a compelling interest to simultaneously assess these features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We acquired multiecho DSC-MR imaging data, allowing the simultaneous computation and voxelwise comparison of single- and dual-echo derived measures of K2, K(a) and K(trans) in patients with glioma. This acquisition enabled the investigation of competing T1 and T2* leakage effects and TE dependency on these parameters. RESULTS: K2 and K(a) displayed nonsignificant (P = .150 and P = .060, respectively) voxelwise linear correlations with K(trans), while a significant (P < .001) inverse relationship was observed between K2 and Ka (coefficient of determination [r(2)] = 0.466-0.984). Significantly different (P < .005) mean estimates were found between voxels exhibiting predominately T1 and T2* effects for K2 and K(a). K(trans), however, was observed to be similar between these voxels (0.109 versus 0.092 minutes(-1)). Significant differences (P < .001) in extracellular-extravascular volume fraction (v(e)) (0.285 versus 0.167) were also observed between cohorts. Additionally, K2 and K(a) were found to have a significant quadratic relationship (P = .031 and P = .005, respectively) with v(e). CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of vascular permeability in brain tumors may be simultaneously acquired from multiple-echo DSC-MR imaging via K(trans); however, caution should be used in assuming a similar relationship for K2 and K(a).
Authors: Heiko Schmiedeskamp; Matus Straka; Rexford D Newbould; Greg Zaharchuk; Jalal B Andre; Jean-Marc Olivot; Michael E Moseley; Gregory W Albers; Roland Bammer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kathleen M Schmainda; Melissa Prah; Jennifer Connelly; Scott D Rand; Raymond G Hoffman; Wade Mueller; Mark G Malkin Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Jack T Skinner; Ryan K Robison; Christopher P Elder; Allen T Newton; Bruce M Damon; C Chad Quarles Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Natenael B Semmineh; Junzhong Xu; Jerrold L Boxerman; Gary W Delaney; Paul W Cleary; John C Gore; C Chad Quarles Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mark Jrj Bouts; Ivo Acw Tiebosch; Umesh S Rudrapatna; Annette van der Toorn; Ona Wu; Rick M Dijkhuizen Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Ashley M Stokes; Natenael B Semmineh; Ashley Nespodzany; Laura C Bell; C Chad Quarles Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S H Kim; K H Cho; S H Choi; T M Kim; C K Park; S H Park; J K Won; I H Kim; S T Lee Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Naris Nilubol; ZiQiang Yuan; Giulio F Paciotti; Lawrence Tamarkin; Carmen Sanchez; Kelli Gaskins; Esther M Freedman; Shugeng Cao; Jielu Zhao; David G I Kingston; Steven K Libutti; Electron Kebebew Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Atticus H Hainsworth; Stuart M Allan; Johannes Boltze; Catriona Cunningham; Chad Farris; Elizabeth Head; Masafumi Ihara; Jeremy D Isaacs; Raj N Kalaria; Saskia A M J Lesnik Oberstein; Mark B Moss; Björn Nitzsche; Gary A Rosenberg; Julie W Rutten; Melita Salkovic-Petrisic; Aron M Troen Journal: BMC Med Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 8.775