Guido H Jajamovich1, Wei Huang2, Cecilia Besa1, Xin Li2, Aneela Afzal2, Hadrien A Dyvorne1, Bachir Taouli3. 1. Department of Radiology and Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 2. Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Department of Radiology and Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA. bachir.taouli@mountsinai.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) perfusion and flow with the fast exchange regime-allowed Shutter-Speed model (SSM) compared to the Tofts model (TM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 25 patients with HCC underwent DCE-MRI. ROIs were placed in liver parenchyma, portal vein, aorta and HCC lesions. Signal intensities were analyzed employing dual-input TM and SSM models. ART (arterial fraction), K (trans) (contrast agent transfer rate constant from plasma to extravascular extracellular space), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), kep (contrast agent intravasation rate constant), and τi (mean intracellular water molecule lifetime) were compared between liver parenchyma and HCC, and ART, K (trans), v e and k ep were compared between models using Wilcoxon tests and limits of agreement. Test-retest reproducibility was assessed in 10 patients. RESULTS: ART and v e obtained with TM; ART, ve, ke and τi obtained with SSM were significantly different between liver parenchyma and HCC (p < 0.04). Parameters showed variable reproducibility (CV range 14.7-66.5% for both models). Liver K (trans) and ve; HCC ve and kep were significantly different when estimated with the two models (p < 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our results show differences when computed between the TM and the SSM. However, these differences are smaller than parameter reproducibilities and may be of limited clinical significance.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) perfusion and flow with the fast exchange regime-allowed Shutter-Speed model (SSM) compared to the Tofts model (TM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 25 patients with HCC underwent DCE-MRI. ROIs were placed in liver parenchyma, portal vein, aorta and HCC lesions. Signal intensities were analyzed employing dual-input TM and SSM models. ART (arterial fraction), K (trans) (contrast agent transfer rate constant from plasma to extravascular extracellular space), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), kep (contrast agent intravasation rate constant), and τi (mean intracellular water molecule lifetime) were compared between liver parenchyma and HCC, and ART, K (trans), v e and k ep were compared between models using Wilcoxon tests and limits of agreement. Test-retest reproducibility was assessed in 10 patients. RESULTS: ART and v e obtained with TM; ART, ve, ke and τi obtained with SSM were significantly different between liver parenchyma and HCC (p < 0.04). Parameters showed variable reproducibility (CV range 14.7-66.5% for both models). Liver K (trans) and ve; HCC ve and kep were significantly different when estimated with the two models (p < 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our results show differences when computed between the TM and the SSM. However, these differences are smaller than parameter reproducibilities and may be of limited clinical significance.
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; William D Rooney; Wei Huang; Jonathan P Dyke; Xin Li; Alina Tudorica; Jing-Huei Lee; Jason A Koutcher; Charles S Springer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.044
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: Matthew R Orton; Keiko Miyazaki; Dow-Mu Koh; David J Collins; David J Hawkes; David Atkinson; Martin O Leach Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: O N El-Assal; A Yamanoi; Y Soda; M Yamaguchi; M Igarashi; A Yamamoto; T Nabika; N Nagasue Journal: Hepatology Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: S Chawla; L A Loevner; S G Kim; W-T Hwang; S Wang; G Verma; S Mohan; V LiVolsi; H Quon; H Poptani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Marta Campos; Isabel Candelária; Nickolas Papanikolaou; Adélia Simão; Carlos Ferreira; Georgios C Manikis; Filipe Caseiro-Alves Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-02-18
Authors: Marianna Inglese; Katherine L Ordidge; Lesley Honeyfield; Tara D Barwick; Eric O Aboagye; Adam D Waldman; Matthew Grech-Sollars Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 2.804