Sharon Peled1, Mark Vangel2, Ron Kikinis3, Clare M Tempany3, Fiona M Fennessy3, Andrey Fedorov3. 1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. Electronic address: speled@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging is notable for the variability of calculated parameters. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of measurement variability and error/variability due to modeling in DCE magnetic resonance imaging parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two prostate DCE scans were performed on 11 treatment-naïve patients with suspected or confirmed prostate peripheral zone cancer within an interval of less than two weeks. Tumor-suspicious and normal-appearing regions of interest (ROI) in the prostate peripheral zone were segmented. Different Tofts-Kety based models and different arterial input functions, with and without bolus arrival time (BAT) correction, were used to extract pharmacokinetic parameters. The percent repeatability coefficient (%RC) of fitted model parameters Ktrans, ve, and kep was calculated. Paired t-tests comparing parameters in tumor-suspicious ROIs and in normal-appearing tissue evaluated each parameter's sensitivity to pathology. RESULTS: Although goodness-of-fit criteria favored the four-parameter extended Tofts-Kety model with the BAT correction included, the simplest two-parameter Tofts-Kety model overall yielded the best repeatability scores. The best %RC in the tumor-suspicious ROI was 63% for kep, 28% for ve, and 83% for Ktrans . The best p values for discrimination between tissues were p <10-5 for kep and Ktrans, and p = 0.11 for ve. Addition of the BAT correction to the models did not improve repeatability. CONCLUSION: The parameter kep, using an arterial input functions directly measured from blood signals, was more repeatable than Ktrans. Both Ktrans and kep values were highly discriminatory between healthy and diseased tissues in all cases. The parameter ve had high repeatability but could not distinguish the two tissue types.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging is notable for the variability of calculated parameters. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of measurement variability and error/variability due to modeling in DCE magnetic resonance imaging parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two prostate DCE scans were performed on 11 treatment-naïve patients with suspected or confirmed prostate peripheral zone cancer within an interval of less than two weeks. Tumor-suspicious and normal-appearing regions of interest (ROI) in the prostate peripheral zone were segmented. Different Tofts-Kety based models and different arterial input functions, with and without bolus arrival time (BAT) correction, were used to extract pharmacokinetic parameters. The percent repeatability coefficient (%RC) of fitted model parameters Ktrans, ve, and kep was calculated. Paired t-tests comparing parameters in tumor-suspicious ROIs and in normal-appearing tissue evaluated each parameter's sensitivity to pathology. RESULTS: Although goodness-of-fit criteria favored the four-parameter extended Tofts-Kety model with the BAT correction included, the simplest two-parameter Tofts-Kety model overall yielded the best repeatability scores. The best %RC in the tumor-suspicious ROI was 63% for kep, 28% for ve, and 83% for Ktrans . The best p values for discrimination between tissues were p <10-5 for kep and Ktrans, and p = 0.11 for ve. Addition of the BAT correction to the models did not improve repeatability. CONCLUSION: The parameter kep, using an arterial input functions directly measured from blood signals, was more repeatable than Ktrans. Both Ktrans and kep values were highly discriminatory between healthy and diseased tissues in all cases. The parameter ve had high repeatability but could not distinguish the two tissue types.
Authors: Deirdre M McGrath; Daniel P Bradley; Jean L Tessier; Tony Lacey; Chris J Taylor; Geoffrey J M Parker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Geoff J M Parker; Caleb Roberts; Andrew Macdonald; Giovanni A Buonaccorsi; Sue Cheung; David L Buckley; Alan Jackson; Yvonne Watson; Karen Davies; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-11 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: T Barrett; A B Gill; M Y Kataoka; A N Priest; I Joubert; M A McLean; M J Graves; S Stearn; D J Lomas; J R Griffiths; D Neal; V J Gnanapragasam; E Sala Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ryan T Woodall; Prativa Sahoo; Yujie Cui; Bihong T Chen; Mark S Shiroishi; Cristina Lavini; Paul Frankel; Margarita Gutova; Christine E Brown; Jennifer M Munson; Russell C Rockne Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2021-11-22
Authors: W Jeffrey Zabel; Nader Allam; Warren D Foltz; Costel Flueraru; Edward Taylor; I Alex Vitkin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Andrey Fedorov; Reinhard Beichel; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; David Clunie; Michael Onken; Jörg Riesmeier; Christian Herz; Christian Bauer; Andrew Beers; Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin; Andras Lasso; Csaba Pinter; Steve Pieper; Marco Nolden; Klaus Maier-Hein; Markus D Herrmann; Joel Saltz; Fred Prior; Fiona Fennessy; John Buatti; Ron Kikinis Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-05