Chang-Yu Sun1, Christopher M Walker1,2, Keith A Michel1,2, Aradhana M Venkatesan3, Stephen Y Lai4, James A Bankson1,2. 1. Department of Imaging Physics, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Department of Head & Neck Surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the effects of noise and error on kinetic analyses of tumor metabolism using hyperpolarized [1-13 C] pyruvate. METHODS: Numerical simulations were performed to systematically investigate the effects of noise, the number of unknowns, and error in kinetic parameter estimates on kinetic analysis of the apparent rate of chemical conversion from hyperpolarized pyruvate to lactate (kPL ). A pharmacokinetic model with two physical and two chemical pools of hyperpolarized spins was used to generate and analyze the synthetic data. RESULTS: The reproducibility of kPL estimates worsened quickly when peak signal-to-noise ratio for hyperpolarized pyruvate was below approximately 20. The accuracy of kPL estimates was most sensitive to errors in high excitation angles, the vascular blood volume fraction (vb ), and the rate of pyruvate extravasation (kve ), and was least sensitive to errors in the T1 of pyruvate. When vb and/or kve were fit as additional unknowns, the accuracy of kPL estimates suffered, and when the vascular input function of pyruvate was also fit, the reproducibility of kPL estimates worsened. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and precision of kPL estimates improve substantially for peak signal-to-noise ratio above approximately 20. Accurate estimates of perfusion parameters (combinations of vb , kve , and the pyruvate vascular input function) and transmit calibration at high excitation angles have the greatest effect on the accuracy of kinetic analyses. Magn Reson Med 79:3239-3248, 2018.
PURPOSE: To explore the effects of noise and error on kinetic analyses of tumor metabolism using hyperpolarized [1-13 C] pyruvate. METHODS: Numerical simulations were performed to systematically investigate the effects of noise, the number of unknowns, and error in kinetic parameter estimates on kinetic analysis of the apparent rate of chemical conversion from hyperpolarized pyruvate to lactate (kPL ). A pharmacokinetic model with two physical and two chemical pools of hyperpolarized spins was used to generate and analyze the synthetic data. RESULTS: The reproducibility of kPL estimates worsened quickly when peak signal-to-noise ratio for hyperpolarized pyruvate was below approximately 20. The accuracy of kPL estimates was most sensitive to errors in high excitation angles, the vascular blood volume fraction (vb ), and the rate of pyruvate extravasation (kve ), and was least sensitive to errors in the T1 of pyruvate. When vb and/or kve were fit as additional unknowns, the accuracy of kPL estimates suffered, and when the vascular input function of pyruvate was also fit, the reproducibility of kPL estimates worsened. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and precision of kPL estimates improve substantially for peak signal-to-noise ratio above approximately 20. Accurate estimates of perfusion parameters (combinations of vb , kve , and the pyruvate vascular input function) and transmit calibration at high excitation angles have the greatest effect on the accuracy of kinetic analyses. Magn Reson Med 79:3239-3248, 2018.
Authors: Matthew L Zierhut; Yi-Fen Yen; Albert P Chen; Robert Bok; Mark J Albers; Vickie Zhang; Jim Tropp; Ilwoo Park; Daniel B Vigneron; John Kurhanewicz; Ralph E Hurd; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Myriam M Chaumeil; Tomoko Ozawa; IlWoo Park; Kristen Scott; C David James; Sarah J Nelson; Sabrina M Ronen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-07-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Christopher S Ward; Humsa S Venkatesh; Myriam M Chaumeil; Alissa H Brandes; Mark Vancriekinge; Hagit Dafni; Subramaniam Sukumar; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel B Vigneron; John Kurhanewicz; C David James; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Sabrina M Ronen Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Crystal Harrison; Chendong Yang; Ashish Jindal; Ralph J DeBerardinis; M A Hooshyar; Matthew Merritt; A Dean Sherry; Craig R Malloy Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Sam E Day; Mikko I Kettunen; Ferdia A Gallagher; De-En Hu; Mathilde Lerche; Jan Wolber; Klaes Golman; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Kevin M Brindle Journal: Nat Med Date: 2007-10-28 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Marina Radoul; Myriam M Chaumeil; Pia Eriksson; Alan S Wang; Joanna J Phillips; Sabrina M Ronen Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Vlad C Sandulache; Heath D Skinner; Yuan Wang; Yunyun Chen; Cristina T Dodge; Thomas J Ow; James A Bankson; Jeffrey N Myers; Stephen Y Lai Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: S M Kazan; S Reynolds; A Kennerley; E Wholey; J E Bluff; J Berwick; V J Cunningham; M N Paley; G M Tozer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Deborah K Hill; Matthew R Orton; Erika Mariotti; Jessica K R Boult; Rafal Panek; Maysam Jafar; Harold G Parkes; Yann Jamin; Maria Falck Miniotis; Nada M S Al-Saffar; Mounia Beloueche-Babari; Simon P Robinson; Martin O Leach; Yuen-Li Chung; Thomas R Eykyn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Zhan Xu; Joshua S Niedzielski; Changyu Sun; Christopher M Walker; Keith A Michel; Samuel A Einstein; Gary V Martinez; James A Bankson Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Daniele Mammoli; Jeremy Gordon; Adam Autry; Peder E Z Larson; Yan Li; Hsin-Yu Chen; Brian Chung; Peter Shin; Mark Van Criekinge; Lucas Carvajal; James B Slater; Robert Bok; Jason Crane; Duan Xu; Susan Chang; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Christopher M Walker; David Fuentes; Peder E Z Larson; Vikas Kundra; Daniel B Vigneron; James A Bankson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Shuyu Tang; Eugene Milshteyn; Galen Reed; Jeremy Gordon; Robert Bok; Xucheng Zhu; Zihan Zhu; Daniel B Vigneron; Peder E Z Larson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jeremy W Gordon; Adam W Autry; Shuyu Tang; Jasmine Y Graham; Robert A Bok; Xucheng Zhu; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Yan Li; Michael A Ohilger; Maria Roselle Abraham; Duan Xu; Daniel B Vigneron; Peder E Z Larson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Keith A Michel; Rafal Zieliński; Christopher M Walker; Lucia Le Roux; Waldemar Priebe; James A Bankson; Dawid Schellingerhout Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: James T Grist; Mary A McLean; Frank Riemer; Rolf F Schulte; Surrin S Deen; Fulvio Zaccagna; Ramona Woitek; Charlie J Daniels; Joshua D Kaggie; Tomasz Matys; Ilse Patterson; Rhys Slough; Andrew B Gill; Anita Chhabra; Rose Eichenberger; Marie-Christine Laurent; Arnaud Comment; Jonathan H Gillard; Alasdair J Coles; Damian J Tyler; Ian Wilkinson; Bristi Basu; David J Lomas; Martin J Graves; Kevin M Brindle; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Prasanta Dutta; Travis C Salzillo; Shivanand Pudakalakatti; Seth T Gammon; Benny A Kaipparettu; Florencia McAllister; Shawn Wagner; Daniel E Frigo; Christopher J Logothetis; Niki M Zacharias; Pratip K Bhattacharya Journal: Cells Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 6.600
Authors: Collin J Harlan; Zhan Xu; Christopher M Walker; Keith A Michel; Galen D Reed; James A Bankson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 4.506