Literature DB >> 32748300

The Effect of Registration on Voxel-Wise Tofts Model Parameters and Uncertainties from DCE-MRI of Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients Using 3DSlicer.

Matthew Mouawad1, Heather Biernaski2, Muriel Brackstone3,4, Michael Lock4,5, Anat Kornecki6,7, Olga Shmuilovich6,7, Ilanit Ben-Nachum6,7, Frank S Prato8,2,6, R Terry Thompson8,2,6, Stewart Gaede8,2,9, Neil Gelman8,2,6.   

Abstract

We quantitatively investigate the influence of image registration, using open-source software (3DSlicer), on kinetic analysis (Tofts model) of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of early-stage breast cancer patients. We also show that registration computation time can be reduced by reducing the percent sampling (PS) of voxels used for estimation of the cost function. DCE-MRI breast images were acquired on a 3T-PET/MRI system in 13 patients with early-stage breast cancer who were scanned in a prone radiotherapy position. Images were registered using a BSpline transformation with a 2 cm isotropic grid at 100, 20, 5, 1, and 0.5PS (BRAINSFit in 3DSlicer). Signal enhancement curves were analyzed voxel-by-voxel using the Tofts kinetic model. Comparing unregistered with registered groups, we found a significant change in the 90th percentile of the voxel-wise distribution of Ktrans. We also found a significant reduction in the following: (1) in the standard error (uncertainty) of the parameter value estimation, (2) the number of voxel fits providing unphysical values for the extracellular-extravascular volume fraction (ve > 1), and (3) goodness of fit. We found no significant differences in the median of parameter value distributions (Ktrans, ve) between unregistered and registered images. Differences between parameters and uncertainties obtained using 100PS versus 20PS were small and statistically insignificant. As such, computation time can be reduced by a factor of 2, on average, by using 20PS while not affecting the kinetic fit. The methods outlined here are important for studies including a large number of post-contrast images or number of patient images.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3DSlicer; Breast DCE-MRI; Computation time; Deformable registration; Imaging biomarkers; Percent sampling

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32748300      PMCID: PMC7572994          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-020-00374-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  18 in total

1.  3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network.

Authors:  Andriy Fedorov; Reinhard Beichel; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Julien Finet; Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin; Sonia Pujol; Christian Bauer; Dominique Jennings; Fiona Fennessy; Milan Sonka; John Buatti; Stephen Aylward; James V Miller; Steve Pieper; Ron Kikinis
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 2.546

2.  Evaluating an optical-flow-based registration algorithm for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast.

Authors:  A L Martel; M S Froh; K K Brock; D B Plewes; D C Barber
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-05-31       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 3.  Review of treatment assessment using DCE-MRI in breast cancer radiation therapy.

Authors:  Chun-Hao Wang; Fang-Fang Yin; Janet Horton; Zheng Chang
Journal:  World J Methodol       Date:  2014-06-26

4.  Technical Note: Comparison of megavoltage, dual-energy, and single-energy CT-based μ-maps for a four-channel breast coil in PET/MRI.

Authors:  John C Patrick; R Terry Thompson; Aaron So; John Butler; David Faul; Robert Z Stodilka; Slav Yartsev; Frank S Prato; Stewart Gaede
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  Breast image analysis for risk assessment, detection, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger; Nico Karssemeijer; Julia A Schnabel
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 9.590

6.  Assessing changes in tumour vascular function using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Carmel Hayes; Anwar R Padhani; Martin O Leach
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.044

7.  Fully automated deformable registration of breast DCE-MRI and PET/CT.

Authors:  I D Dmitriev; C E Loo; W V Vogel; K E Pengel; K G A Gilhuijs
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

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

Review 9.  Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols.

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

Review 10.  DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents.

Authors:  J P B O'Connor; A Jackson; G J M Parker; G C Jayson
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.