Literature DB >> 27694709

A novel anthropomorphic flow phantom for the quantitative evaluation of prostate DCE-MRI acquisition techniques.

Silvin P Knight1, Jacinta E Browne, James F Meaney, David S Smith, Andrew J Fagan.   

Abstract

A novel anthropomorphic flow phantom device has been developed, which can be used for quantitatively assessing the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners to accurately measure signal/concentration time-intensity curves (CTCs) associated with dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI. Modelling of the complex pharmacokinetics of contrast agents as they perfuse through the tumour capillary network has shown great promise for cancer diagnosis and therapy monitoring. However, clinical adoption has been hindered by methodological problems, resulting in a lack of consensus regarding the most appropriate acquisition and modelling methodology to use and a consequent wide discrepancy in published data. A heretofore overlooked source of such discrepancy may arise from measurement errors of tumour CTCs deriving from the imaging pulse sequence itself, while the effects on the fidelity of CTC measurement of using rapidly-accelerated sequences such as parallel imaging and compressed sensing remain unknown. The present work aimed to investigate these features by developing a test device in which 'ground truth' CTCs were generated and presented to the MRI scanner for measurement, thereby allowing for an assessment of the DCE-MRI protocol to accurately measure this curve shape. The device comprised a four-pump flow system wherein CTCs derived from prior patient prostate data were produced in measurement chambers placed within the imaged volume. The ground truth was determined as the mean of repeat measurements using an MRI-independent, custom-built optical imaging system. In DCE-MRI experiments, significant discrepancies between the ground truth and measured CTCs were found for both tumorous and healthy tissue-mimicking curve shapes. Pharmacokinetic modelling revealed errors in measured K trans, v e and k ep values of up to 42%, 31%, and 50% respectively, following a simple variation of the parallel imaging factor and number of signal averages in the acquisition protocol. The device allows for the quantitative assessment and standardisation of DCE-MRI protocols (both existing and emerging).

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27694709      PMCID: PMC6204072          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/20/7466

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  30 in total

1.  Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA).

Authors:  Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 2.  Tracer kinetic modelling in MRI: estimating perfusion and capillary permeability.

Authors:  S P Sourbron; D L Buckley
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Use of computational fluid dynamics in the design of dynamic contrast enhanced imaging phantoms.

Authors:  Prasanna Hariharan; Melanie Freed; Matthew R Myers
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Wash-in rate on the basis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: usefulness for prostate cancer detection and localization.

Authors:  Jeong Kon Kim; Seong Sook Hong; Young Jun Choi; Seong Ho Park; Hanjong Ahn; Choung-Soo Kim; Kyoung-Sik Cho
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 5.  Tumor angiogenesis: tutorial on implications for imaging.

Authors:  T J Passe; D A Bluemke; S S Siegelman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Reproducibility and correlation between quantitative and semiquantitative dynamic and intrinsic susceptibility-weighted MRI parameters in the benign and malignant human prostate.

Authors:  Roberto Alonzi; N Jane Taylor; J James Stirling; James A d'Arcy; David J Collins; Michele I Saunders; Peter J Hoskin; Anwar R Padhani
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Temporal sampling requirements for the tracer kinetics modeling of breast disease.

Authors:  E Henderson; B K Rutt; T Y Lee
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.546

8.  Diagnosis of relevant prostate cancer using supplementary cores from magnetic resonance imaging-prompted areas following multiple failed biopsies.

Authors:  Daniel N Costa; B Nicolas Bloch; David F Yao; Martin G Sanda; Long Ngo; Elizabeth M Genega; Ivan Pedrosa; William C DeWolf; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 2.546

9.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  DCEMRI.jl: a fast, validated, open source toolkit for dynamic contrast enhanced MRI analysis.

Authors:  David S Smith; Xia Li; Lori R Arlinghaus; Thomas E Yankeelov; E Brian Welch
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 2.984

View more
  4 in total

1.  Modification of population based arterial input function to incorporate individual variation.

Authors:  Harrison Kim
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 2.546

2.  Quantitative effects of acquisition duration and temporal resolution on the measurement accuracy of prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data: a phantom study.

Authors:  Silvin Paul Knight; Jacinta Elizabeth Browne; James Frances Mary Meaney; Andrew John Fagan
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 2.310

3.  Portable perfusion phantom for quantitative DCE-MRI of the abdomen.

Authors:  Harrison Kim; Mina Mousa; Patrick Schexnailder; Robert Hergenrother; Mark Bolding; Bernard Ntsikoussalabongui; Vinoy Thomas; Desiree E Morgan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Variability in Quantitative DCE-MRI: Sources and Solutions.

Authors:  Harrison Kim
Journal:  J Nat Sci       Date:  2018
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.