Pedro Augusto Gondim Teixeira1, Christophe Leplat2, Bailiang Chen3, Jacques De Verbizier2, Marine Beaumont3, Sammy Badr4, Anne Cotten4, Alain Blum2. 1. Service D'imagerie Guilloz, Hôpital Central, CHRU-Nancy, 29, avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 54035, Nancy cedex, France. ped_gt@hotmail.com. 2. Service D'imagerie Guilloz, Hôpital Central, CHRU-Nancy, 29, avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 54035, Nancy cedex, France. 3. Université de Lorraine, laboratoire IADI, UMR S 947, Nancy, France. 4. Department of Radiology and Musculoskeletal Imaging, CHRU Lille Centre de Consultations et d'Imagerie de l'Appareil Locomoteur, 59037, Lille, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate intra-tumour and striated muscle T1 value heterogeneity and the influence of different methods of T1 estimation on the variability of quantitative perfusion parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-two patients with a histologically confirmed musculoskeletal tumour were prospectively included in this study and, with ethics committee approval, underwent contrast-enhanced MR perfusion and T1 mapping. T1 value variations in viable tumour areas and in normal-appearing striated muscle were assessed. In 20 cases, normal muscle perfusion parameters were calculated using three different methods: signal based and gadolinium concentration based on fixed and variable T1 values. RESULTS: Tumour and normal muscle T1 values were significantly different (p = 0.0008). T1 value heterogeneity was higher in tumours than in normal muscle (variation of 19.8% versus 13%). The T1 estimation method had a considerable influence on the variability of perfusion parameters. Fixed T1 values yielded higher coefficients of variation than variable T1 values (mean 109.6 ± 41.8% and 58.3 ± 14.1% respectively). Area under the curve was the least variable parameter (36%). CONCLUSION: T1 values in musculoskeletal tumours are significantly different and more heterogeneous than normal muscle. Patient-specific T1 estimation is needed for direct inter-patient comparison of perfusion parameters. KEY POINTS: • T1 value variation in musculoskeletal tumours is considerable. • T1 values in muscle and tumours are significantly different. • Patient-specific T1 estimation is needed for comparison of inter-patient perfusion parameters. • Technical variation is higher in permeability than semiquantitative perfusion parameters.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate intra-tumour and striated muscle T1 value heterogeneity and the influence of different methods of T1 estimation on the variability of quantitative perfusion parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-two patients with a histologically confirmed musculoskeletal tumour were prospectively included in this study and, with ethics committee approval, underwent contrast-enhanced MR perfusion and T1 mapping. T1 value variations in viable tumour areas and in normal-appearing striated muscle were assessed. In 20 cases, normal muscle perfusion parameters were calculated using three different methods: signal based and gadolinium concentration based on fixed and variable T1 values. RESULTS:Tumour and normal muscle T1 values were significantly different (p = 0.0008). T1 value heterogeneity was higher in tumours than in normal muscle (variation of 19.8% versus 13%). The T1 estimation method had a considerable influence on the variability of perfusion parameters. Fixed T1 values yielded higher coefficients of variation than variable T1 values (mean 109.6 ± 41.8% and 58.3 ± 14.1% respectively). Area under the curve was the least variable parameter (36%). CONCLUSION: T1 values in musculoskeletal tumours are significantly different and more heterogeneous than normal muscle. Patient-specific T1 estimation is needed for direct inter-patient comparison of perfusion parameters. KEY POINTS: • T1 value variation in musculoskeletal tumours is considerable. • T1 values in muscle and tumours are significantly different. • Patient-specific T1 estimation is needed for comparison of inter-patient perfusion parameters. • Technical variation is higher in permeability than semiquantitative perfusion parameters.
Authors: Tobias Heye; Matthew S Davenport; Jeffrey J Horvath; Sebastian Feuerlein; Steven R Breault; Mustafa R Bashir; Elmar M Merkle; Daniel T Boll Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephen M Fisher; Robert Joodi; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Orhan K Öz; Rohit Sharma; Avneesh Chhabra Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: J Ivanidze; O N Kallas; A Gupta; E Weidman; H Baradaran; D Mir; A Giambrone; A Z Segal; J Claassen; P C Sanelli Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 3.825
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: M O Leach; K M Brindle; J L Evelhoch; J R Griffiths; M R Horsman; A Jackson; G C Jayson; I R Judson; M V Knopp; R J Maxwell; D McIntyre; A R Padhani; P Price; R Rathbone; G J Rustin; P S Tofts; G M Tozer; W Vennart; J C Waterton; S R Williams; P Workman Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-05-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Harbir S Sidhu; Salvatore Benigno; Balaji Ganeshan; Nikos Dikaios; Edward W Johnston; Clare Allen; Alex Kirkham; Ashley M Groves; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton; Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; Shonit Punwani Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 5.315