Chong Duan1, Jesper F Kallehauge2,3, Carlos J Pérez-Torres4,5, G Larry Bretthorst6, Scott C Beeman4, Kari Tanderup3,6,7, Joseph J H Ackerman1,4,8,9, Joel R Garbow10,11. 1. Department of Chemistry, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, 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, MO, USA. 5. School of Health Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 7. Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 8. Department of Medicine, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 9. Alvin J Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, USA. garbow@wustl.edu. 11. Alvin J Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, USA. garbow@wustl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to develop a constrained local arterial input function (cL-AIF) to improve quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data by accounting for the contrast-agent bolus amplitude error in the voxel-specific AIF. PROCEDURES: Bayesian probability theory-based parameter estimation and model selection were used to compare tracer kinetic modeling employing either the measured remote-AIF (R-AIF, i.e., the traditional approach) or an inferred cL-AIF against both in silico DCE-MRI data and clinical, cervical cancer DCE-MRI data. RESULTS: When the data model included the cL-AIF, tracer kinetic parameters were correctly estimated from in silico data under contrast-to-noise conditions typical of clinical DCE-MRI experiments. Considering the clinical cervical cancer data, Bayesian model selection was performed for all tumor voxels of the 16 patients (35,602 voxels in total). Among those voxels, a tracer kinetic model that employed the voxel-specific cL-AIF was preferred (i.e., had a higher posterior probability) in 80 % of the voxels compared to the direct use of a single R-AIF. Maps of spatial variation in voxel-specific AIF bolus amplitude and arrival time for heterogeneous tissues, such as cervical cancer, are accessible with the cL-AIF approach. CONCLUSIONS: The cL-AIF method, which estimates unique local-AIF amplitude and arrival time for each voxel within the tissue of interest, provides better modeling of DCE-MRI data than the use of a single, measured R-AIF. The Bayesian-based data analysis described herein affords estimates of uncertainties for each model parameter, via posterior probability density functions, and voxel-wise comparison across methods/models, via model selection in data modeling.
PURPOSE: This study aims to develop a constrained local arterial input function (cL-AIF) to improve quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data by accounting for the contrast-agent bolus amplitude error in the voxel-specific AIF. PROCEDURES: Bayesian probability theory-based parameter estimation and model selection were used to compare tracer kinetic modeling employing either the measured remote-AIF (R-AIF, i.e., the traditional approach) or an inferred cL-AIF against both in silico DCE-MRI data and clinical, cervical cancerDCE-MRI data. RESULTS: When the data model included the cL-AIF, tracer kinetic parameters were correctly estimated from in silico data under contrast-to-noise conditions typical of clinical DCE-MRI experiments. Considering the clinical cervical cancer data, Bayesian model selection was performed for all tumor voxels of the 16 patients (35,602 voxels in total). Among those voxels, a tracer kinetic model that employed the voxel-specific cL-AIF was preferred (i.e., had a higher posterior probability) in 80 % of the voxels compared to the direct use of a single R-AIF. Maps of spatial variation in voxel-specific AIF bolus amplitude and arrival time for heterogeneous tissues, such as cervical cancer, are accessible with the cL-AIF approach. CONCLUSIONS: The cL-AIF method, which estimates unique local-AIF amplitude and arrival time for each voxel within the tissue of interest, provides better modeling of DCE-MRI data than the use of a single, measured R-AIF. The Bayesian-based data analysis described herein affords estimates of uncertainties for each model parameter, via posterior probability density functions, and voxel-wise comparison across methods/models, via model selection in data modeling.
Authors: Ona Wu; Leif Østergaard; Walter J Koroshetz; Lee H Schwamm; Joanie O'Donnell; Pamela W Schaefer; Bruce R Rosen; Robert M Weisskoff; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: John J Lee; G Larry Bretthorst; Colin P Derdeyn; William J Powers; Tom O Videen; Abraham Z Snyder; Joanne Markham; Joshua S Shimony Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Josephine H Naish; Lucy E Kershaw; David L Buckley; Alan Jackson; John C Waterton; Geoffrey J M Parker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-06 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: Eric C Leuthardt; Chong Duan; Michael J Kim; Jian L Campian; Albert H Kim; Michelle M Miller-Thomas; Joshua S Shimony; David D Tran Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jonghyun Bae; Zhengnan Huang; Florian Knoll; Krzysztof Geras; Terlika Pandit Sood; Li Feng; Laura Heacock; Linda Moy; Sungheon Gene Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 4.668