Qihao Zhang1, Pascal Spincemaille2, Michele Drotman2, Christine Chen2, Sarah Eskreis-Winkler2, Weiyuan Huang2, Liangdong Zhou2, John Morgan2, Thanh D Nguyen2, Martin R Prince2, Yi Wang3. 1. Department of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States of America; Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America. 2. Department of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States of America. 3. Department of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States of America; Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America. Electronic address: yw233@cornell.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the feasibility of using quantitative transport mapping (QTM) method, which is based on the inversion of transport equation using spatial deconvolution without any arterial input function, for automatically postprocessing dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) to differentiate malignant and benign breast tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast DCE-MRI data with biopsy confirmed malignant (n = 13) and benign tumors (n = 13) was used to assess QTM velocity (|u|) and diffusion coefficient (D), volume transfer constant (Ktrans), volume fraction of extravascular extracellular space (Ve) from kinetics method, and traditional enhancement curve characteristics (ECC: amplitude A, wash-in rate α, wash-out rate β). A Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis were performed to assess the diagnostic performance of these parameters for distinguishing between benign and malignant tumors. RESULTS: Between malignant and benign tumors, there was a significant difference in |u| and Ktrans, (p = 0.0066, 0.0274, respectively), but not in D, Ve, A, α and β (p = 0.1119, 0.2382, 0.4418,0.2592 and 0.9591, respectively). ROC area-under-the-curve was 0.82, 0.75 (95% confidence level 0.60-0.95, 0.51-0.90) for |u| and Ktrans, respectively. CONCLUSION: QTM postprocesses DCE-MRI automatically through deconvolution in space and time to solve the inverse problem of the transport equation. Comparing with traditional kinetics method and ECC, QTM method showed better diagnostic accuracy in differentiating benign from malignant breast tumors in this study.
PURPOSE: To test the feasibility of using quantitative transport mapping (QTM) method, which is based on the inversion of transport equation using spatial deconvolution without any arterial input function, for automatically postprocessing dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) to differentiate malignant and benign breast tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast DCE-MRI data with biopsy confirmed malignant (n = 13) and benign tumors (n = 13) was used to assess QTM velocity (|u|) and diffusion coefficient (D), volume transfer constant (Ktrans), volume fraction of extravascular extracellular space (Ve) from kinetics method, and traditional enhancement curve characteristics (ECC: amplitude A, wash-in rate α, wash-out rate β). A Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis were performed to assess the diagnostic performance of these parameters for distinguishing between benign and malignant tumors. RESULTS: Between malignant and benign tumors, there was a significant difference in |u| and Ktrans, (p = 0.0066, 0.0274, respectively), but not in D, Ve, A, α and β (p = 0.1119, 0.2382, 0.4418,0.2592 and 0.9591, respectively). ROC area-under-the-curve was 0.82, 0.75 (95% confidence level 0.60-0.95, 0.51-0.90) for |u| and Ktrans, respectively. CONCLUSION: QTM postprocesses DCE-MRI automatically through deconvolution in space and time to solve the inverse problem of the transport equation. Comparing with traditional kinetics method and ECC, QTM method showed better diagnostic accuracy in differentiating benign from malignant breast tumors in this study.
Authors: David A Nordsletten; Shane Blackett; Michael D Bentley; Erik L Ritman; Nicolas P Smith Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2006-01-06 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Sanaz A Jansen; Xiaobing Fan; Gregory S Karczmar; Hiroyuki Abe; Robert A Schmidt; Gillian M Newstead Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Bo Xu; Pascal Spincemaille; Tian Liu; Martin R Prince; Silvina Dutruel; Ajay Gupta; Nanda Deepa Thimmappa; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Anna G Sorace; Savannah C Partridge; Xia Li; Jack Virostko; Stephanie L Barnes; Daniel S Hippe; Wei Huang; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-22
Authors: Kofi Deh; Thanh D Nguyen; Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Martin R Prince; Pascal Spincemaille; Susan Gauthier; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Yan Zhang; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Riham H El Khouli; Katarzyna J Macura; Michael A Jacobs; Tarek H Khalil; Ihab R Kamel; Andrew Dwyer; David A Bluemke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959