Chong Duan1, Jesper F Kallehauge2,3, G Larry Bretthorst4, Kari Tanderup3,5,6, Joseph J H Ackerman1,4,7,8, Joel R Garbow4,8. 1. Department of Chemistry, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Department of Radiology, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA. 6. Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 7. Department of Medicine, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA. 8. Alvin J Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To ascertain whether complex dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI tracer kinetic models are supported by data acquired in the clinic and to determine the consequences of limited contrast-to-noise. METHODS: Generically representative in silico and clinical (cervical cancer) DCE-MRI data were examined. Bayesian model selection evaluated support for four compartmental DCE-MRI models: the Tofts model (TM), Extended Tofts model, Compartmental Tissue Uptake model (CTUM), and Two-Compartment Exchange model. RESULTS: Complex DCE-MRI models were more sensitive to noise than simpler models with respect to both model selection and parameter estimation. Indeed, as contrast-to-noise decreased, complex DCE models became less probable and simpler models more probable. The less complex TM and CTUM were the optimal models for the DCE-MRI data acquired in the clinic. [In cervical tumors, Ktrans, Fp, and PS increased after radiotherapy (P = 0.004, 0.002, and 0.014, respectively)]. CONCLUSION: Caution is advised when considering application of complex DCE-MRI kinetic models to data acquired in the clinic. It follows that data-driven model selection is an important prerequisite to DCE-MRI analysis. Model selection is particularly important when high-order, multiparametric models are under consideration. (Parameters obtained from kinetic modeling of cervical cancer clinical DCE-MRI data showed significant changes at an early stage of radiotherapy.) Magn Reson Med 77:1329-1339, 2017.
PURPOSE: To ascertain whether complex dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI tracer kinetic models are supported by data acquired in the clinic and to determine the consequences of limited contrast-to-noise. METHODS: Generically representative in silico and clinical (cervical cancer) DCE-MRI data were examined. Bayesian model selection evaluated support for four compartmental DCE-MRI models: the Tofts model (TM), Extended Tofts model, Compartmental Tissue Uptake model (CTUM), and Two-Compartment Exchange model. RESULTS: Complex DCE-MRI models were more sensitive to noise than simpler models with respect to both model selection and parameter estimation. Indeed, as contrast-to-noise decreased, complex DCE models became less probable and simpler models more probable. The less complex TM and CTUM were the optimal models for the DCE-MRI data acquired in the clinic. [In cervical tumors, Ktrans, Fp, and PS increased after radiotherapy (P = 0.004, 0.002, and 0.014, respectively)]. CONCLUSION: Caution is advised when considering application of complex DCE-MRI kinetic models to data acquired in the clinic. It follows that data-driven model selection is an important prerequisite to DCE-MRI analysis. Model selection is particularly important when high-order, multiparametric models are under consideration. (Parameters obtained from kinetic modeling of cervical cancer clinical DCE-MRI data showed significant changes at an early stage of radiotherapy.) Magn Reson Med 77:1329-1339, 2017.
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; Jeffrey J Luci; Martin Lepage; Rui Li; Laura Debusk; P Charles Lin; Ronald R Price; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Oana I Craciunescu; David S Yoo; Esi Cleland; Naira Muradyan; Madeline D Carroll; James R MacFall; Daniel P Barboriak; David M Brizel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Cheng Yang; Walter M Stadler; Gregory S Karczmar; Michael Milosevic; Ivan Yeung; Masoom A Haider Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Stephanie B Donaldson; Suzanne C Bonington; Lucy E Kershaw; Richard Cowan; Jeanette Lyons; Tony Elliott; Bernadette M Carrington Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Frank G Zöllner; Walter Dastrù; Pietro Irrera; Dario Livio Longo; Kevin M Bennett; Scott C Beeman; G Larry Bretthorst; Joel R Garbow Journal: Methods Mol Biol Date: 2021
Authors: Chong Duan; Jesper F Kallehauge; Carlos J Pérez-Torres; G Larry Bretthorst; Scott C Beeman; Kari Tanderup; Joseph J H Ackerman; Joel R Garbow Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Ramesh Paudyal; Yonggang Lu; Vaios Hatzoglou; Andre Moreira; Hilda E Stambuk; Jung Hun Oh; Kristen M Cunanan; David Aramburu Nunez; Yousef Mazaheri; Mithat Gonen; Alan Ho; James A Fagin; Richard J Wong; Ashok Shaha; R Michael Tuttle; Amita Shukla-Dave Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Michael Pedersen; Pietro Irrera; Walter Dastrù; Frank G Zöllner; Kevin M Bennett; Scott C Beeman; G Larry Bretthorst; Joel R Garbow; Dario Livio Longo Journal: Methods Mol Biol Date: 2021
Authors: Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Rasha Elmghirbi; Stephen L Brown; Lonni R Schultz; Ian Y Lee; Kelly A Keenan; Swayamprava Panda; Glauber Cabral; Tom Mikkelsen; James R Ewing Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Leonidas Georgiou; Nisha Sharma; David A Broadbent; Daniel J Wilson; Barbara J Dall; Anmol Gangi; David L Buckley Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 4.668