Yuan Le1, Marcel Dominik Nickel2, Stephan Kannengiesser2, Berthold Kiefer2, Bruce Spottiswoode3, Brian Dale3, Victor Soon1, Chen Lin4. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Science, Indiana University School of Medicine, 950 West Walnut St. R2 E124, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. 2. Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc, Malven, PA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Imaging Science, Indiana University School of Medicine, 950 West Walnut St. R2 E124, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. clin1@iupui.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel framework for evaluating the accuracy of quantitative analysis on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI with a specific combination of imaging technique, scanning parameters, and scanner and software performance and to test this framework with breast DCE MRI with Time-resolved angiography WIth Stochastic Trajectories (TWIST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Realistic breast tumor phantoms were 3D printed as cavities and filled with solutions of MR contrast agent. Full k-space raw data of individual tumor phantoms and a uniform background phantom were acquired. DCE raw data were simulated by sorting the raw data according to TWIST view order and scaling the raw data according to the enhancement based on pharmaco-kinetic (PK) models. The measured spatial and temporal characteristics from the images reconstructed using the scanner software were compared with the original PK model (ground truth). RESULTS: Images could be reconstructed using the manufacturer's platform with the modified 'raw data.' Compared with the 'ground truth,' the RMS error in all images was <10% in most cases. With increasing view-sharing acceleration, the error of the initial uptake slope decreased while the error of peak enhancement increased. Deviations of PK parameters varied with the type of enhancement. CONCLUSION: A new framework has been developed and tested to more realistically evaluate the quantitative measurement errors caused by a combination of the imaging technique, parameters and scanner and software performance in DCE-MRI.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel framework for evaluating the accuracy of quantitative analysis on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI with a specific combination of imaging technique, scanning parameters, and scanner and software performance and to test this framework with breast DCE MRI with Time-resolved angiography WIth Stochastic Trajectories (TWIST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Realistic breast tumor phantoms were 3D printed as cavities and filled with solutions of MR contrast agent. Full k-space raw data of individual tumor phantoms and a uniform background phantom were acquired. DCE raw data were simulated by sorting the raw data according to TWIST view order and scaling the raw data according to the enhancement based on pharmaco-kinetic (PK) models. The measured spatial and temporal characteristics from the images reconstructed using the scanner software were compared with the original PK model (ground truth). RESULTS: Images could be reconstructed using the manufacturer's platform with the modified 'raw data.' Compared with the 'ground truth,' the RMS error in all images was <10% in most cases. With increasing view-sharing acceleration, the error of the initial uptake slope decreased while the error of peak enhancement increased. Deviations of PK parameters varied with the type of enhancement. CONCLUSION: A new framework has been developed and tested to more realistically evaluate the quantitative measurement errors caused by a combination of the imaging technique, parameters and scanner and software performance in DCE-MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast imaging; DCE-MRI; Simulation; Tumor model; View-sharing acceleration
Authors: S Agliozzo; M De Luca; C Bracco; A Vignati; V Giannini; L Martincich; L A Carbonaro; A Bert; F Sardanelli; D Regge Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Luminita A Tudorica; Karen Y Oh; Nicole Roy; Mark D Kettler; Yiyi Chen; Stephanie L Hemmingson; Aneela Afzal; John W Grinstead; Gerhard Laub; Xin Li; Wei Huang Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Jose R Teruel; Mariann G Heldahl; Pål E Goa; Martin Pickles; Steinar Lundgren; Tone F Bathen; Peter Gibbs Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Ritse M Mann; Roel D Mus; Jan van Zelst; Christian Geppert; Nico Karssemeijer; Bram Platel Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 6.016
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