Rena Elkin1, Saad Nadeem2, Eve LoCastro2, Ramesh Paudyal2, Vaios Hatzoglou3, Nancy Y Lee4, Amita Shukla-Dave2,3, Joseph O Deasy2, Allen Tannenbaum5. 1. Applied Mathematics & Statistics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Computer Science and Applied Mathematics & Statistics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current state-of-the-art models for estimating the pharmacokinetic parameters do not account for intervoxel movement of the contrast agent (CA). We introduce an optimal mass transport (OMT) formulation that naturally handles intervoxel CA movement and distinguishes between advective and diffusive flows. METHOD: Ten patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were enrolled in the study between June 2014 and October 2015 and underwent DCE MRI imaging prior to beginning treatment. The CA tissue concentration information was taken as the input in the data-driven OMT model. The OMT approach was tested on HNSCC DCE data that provides quantitative information for forward flux ( Φ F ) and backward flux ( Φ B ). OMT-derived Φ F was compared with the volume transfer constant for CA, K trans , derived from the Extended Tofts Model (ETM). RESULTS: The OMT-derived flows showed a consistent jump in the CA diffusive behavior across the images in accordance with the known CA dynamics. The mean forward flux was 0.0082 ± 0.0091 ( min - 1 ) whereas the mean advective component was 0.0052 ± 0.0086 ( min - 1 ) in the HNSCC patients. The diffusive percentages in forward and backward flux ranged from 8.67% to 18.76% and 12.76% to 30.36%, respectively. The OMT model accounts for intervoxel CA movement and results show that the forward flux ( Φ F ) is comparable with the ETM-derived K trans . CONCLUSIONS: This is a novel data-driven study based on optimal mass transport principles applied to patient DCE imaging to analyze CA flow in HNSCC.
PURPOSE: Current state-of-the-art models for estimating the pharmacokinetic parameters do not account for intervoxel movement of the contrast agent (CA). We introduce an optimal mass transport (OMT) formulation that naturally handles intervoxel CA movement and distinguishes between advective and diffusive flows. METHOD: Ten patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were enrolled in the study between June 2014 and October 2015 and underwent DCE MRI imaging prior to beginning treatment. The CA tissue concentration information was taken as the input in the data-driven OMT model. The OMT approach was tested on HNSCC DCE data that provides quantitative information for forward flux ( Φ F ) and backward flux ( Φ B ). OMT-derived Φ F was compared with the volume transfer constant for CA, K trans , derived from the Extended Tofts Model (ETM). RESULTS: The OMT-derived flows showed a consistent jump in the CA diffusive behavior across the images in accordance with the known CA dynamics. The mean forward flux was 0.0082 ± 0.0091 ( min - 1 ) whereas the mean advective component was 0.0052 ± 0.0086 ( min - 1 ) in the HNSCC patients. The diffusive percentages in forward and backward flux ranged from 8.67% to 18.76% and 12.76% to 30.36%, respectively. The OMT model accounts for intervoxel CA movement and results show that the forward flux ( Φ F ) is comparable with the ETM-derived K trans . CONCLUSIONS: This is a novel data-driven study based on optimal mass transport principles applied to patientDCE imaging to analyze CA flow in HNSCC.
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Alan Jackson; Geoff J M Parker; Caleb Roberts; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: S Kim; L A Loevner; H Quon; A Kilger; E Sherman; G Weinstein; A Chalian; H Poptani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Amita Shukla-Dave; Nancy Y Lee; Jacobus F A Jansen; Howard T Thaler; Hilda E Stambuk; Matthew G Fury; Snehal G Patel; Andre L Moreira; Eric Sherman; Sasan Karimi; Ya Wang; Dennis Kraus; Jatin P Shah; David G Pfister; Jason A Koutcher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hassan Bagher-Ebadian; Rajan Jain; Siamak P Nejad-Davarani; Tom Mikkelsen; Mei Lu; Quan Jiang; Lisa Scarpace; Ali S Arbab; Jayant Narang; Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh; Ramesh Paudyal; James R Ewing Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Wei Huang; Yiyi Chen; Andriy Fedorov; Xia Li; Guido H Jajamovich; Dariya I Malyarenko; Madhava P Aryal; Peter S LaViolette; Matthew J Oborski; Finbarr O'Sullivan; Richard G Abramson; Kourosh Jafari-Khouzani; Aneela Afzal; Alina Tudorica; Brendan Moloney; Sandeep N Gupta; Cecilia Besa; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; James M Mountz; Charles M Laymon; Mark Muzi; Kathleen Schmainda; Yue Cao; Thomas L Chenevert; Bachir Taouli; Thomas E Yankeelov; Fiona Fennessy; Xin Li Journal: Tomography Date: 2016-03