Luc Beuzit1, Pierre-Antoine Eliat2, Vanessa Brun1, Jean-Christophe Ferré1,3, Yves Gandon1, Elise Bannier1,3, Hervé Saint-Jalmes4,5. 1. Department of Radiology, CHU Rennes, France. 2. PRISM-Biosit CNRS UMS 3480, INSERM UMS 018, University of Rennes 1, France. 3. Neurinfo MR Imaging Platform, University of Rennes 1, France. 4. LTSI, UMR 1099, INSERM, University of Rennes 1, France. 5. Eugène Marquis Cancer Institute, Rennes, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the reproducibility and accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurements on five analysis software packages (SPs) for dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), using simulated and clinical data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was Institutional Review Board-approved. Simulated tissues consisted of pixel clusters of calculated dynamic signal changes for combinations of Tofts model pharmacokinetic parameters (volume transfer constant [K(trans) ], extravascular extracellular volume fraction [ve ]), longitudinal relaxation time (T1 ). The clinical group comprised 27 patients treated for rectal cancer, with 36 3T DCE-MR scans performed between November 2012 and February 2014, including dual-flip-angle T1 mapping and a dynamic postcontrast T1 -weighted, 3D spoiled gradient-echo sequence. The clinical and simulated images were postprocessed with five SPs to measure K(trans) , ve , and the initial area under the gadolinium curve (iAUGC). Modified Bland-Altman analysis was conducted, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and within-subject coefficients of variation were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-one examinations from 23 patients were of sufficient technical quality and postprocessed. Measurement errors were observed on the simulated data for all the pharmacokinetic parameters and SPs, with a bias ranging from -0.19 min(-1) to 0.09 min(-1) for K(trans) , -0.15 to 0.01 for ve , and -0.65 to 1.66 mmol.L(-1) .min for iAUGC. The ICC between SPs revealed moderate agreement for the simulated data (K(trans) : 0.50; ve : 0.67; iAUGC: 0.77) and very poor agreement for the clinical data (K(trans) : 0.10; ve : 0.16; iAUGC: 0.21). CONCLUSION: Significant errors were found in the calculated DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic parameters for the perfusion analysis SPs, resulting in poor inter-software reproducibility. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:1288-1300.
PURPOSE: To test the reproducibility and accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurements on five analysis software packages (SPs) for dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), using simulated and clinical data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was Institutional Review Board-approved. Simulated tissues consisted of pixel clusters of calculated dynamic signal changes for combinations of Tofts model pharmacokinetic parameters (volume transfer constant [K(trans) ], extravascular extracellular volume fraction [ve ]), longitudinal relaxation time (T1 ). The clinical group comprised 27 patients treated for rectal cancer, with 36 3T DCE-MR scans performed between November 2012 and February 2014, including dual-flip-angle T1 mapping and a dynamic postcontrast T1 -weighted, 3D spoiled gradient-echo sequence. The clinical and simulated images were postprocessed with five SPs to measure K(trans) , ve , and the initial area under the gadolinium curve (iAUGC). Modified Bland-Altman analysis was conducted, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and within-subject coefficients of variation were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-one examinations from 23 patients were of sufficient technical quality and postprocessed. Measurement errors were observed on the simulated data for all the pharmacokinetic parameters and SPs, with a bias ranging from -0.19 min(-1) to 0.09 min(-1) for K(trans) , -0.15 to 0.01 for ve , and -0.65 to 1.66 mmol.L(-1) .min for iAUGC. The ICC between SPs revealed moderate agreement for the simulated data (K(trans) : 0.50; ve : 0.67; iAUGC: 0.77) and very poor agreement for the clinical data (K(trans) : 0.10; ve : 0.16; iAUGC: 0.21). CONCLUSION: Significant errors were found in the calculated DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic parameters for the perfusion analysis SPs, resulting in poor inter-software reproducibility. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:1288-1300.
Authors: Shaveta Mehta; Nick P Hughes; Sonia Li; Adrian Jubb; Rosie Adams; Simon Lord; Lefteris Koumakis; Ruud van Stiphout; Anwar Padhani; Andreas Makris; Francesca M Buffa; Adrian L Harris Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2016-07-16 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Daniel P Barboriak; Zheng Zhang; Pratikkumar Desai; Bradley S Snyder; Yair Safriel; Robert C McKinstry; Felix Bokstein; Gregory Sorensen; Mark R Gilbert; Jerrold L Boxerman Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Amita Shukla-Dave; Nancy A Obuchowski; Thomas L Chenevert; Sachin Jambawalikar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Dariya Malyarenko; Wei Huang; Susan M Noworolski; Robert J Young; Mark S Shiroishi; Harrison Kim; Catherine Coolens; Hendrik Laue; Caroline Chung; Mark Rosen; Michael Boss; Edward F Jackson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Roberto García-Figueiras; Sandra Baleato-González; Anwar R Padhani; Ana Marhuenda; Antonio Luna; Lidia Alcalá; Ana Carballo-Castro; Ana Álvarez-Castro Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2016-04-30