Literature DB >> 34775621

The impeded diffusion fraction quantitative imaging assay demonstrated in multi-exponential diffusion phantom and prostate cancer.

Dariya I Malyarenko1, Scott D Swanson1, Sean D McGarry2, Peter S LaViolette2, Thomas L Chenevert1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To demonstrate a method for quantification of impeded diffusion fraction (IDF) using conventional clinical DWI protocols.
METHODS: The IDF formalism is introduced to quantify contribution from water coordinated by macromolecules to DWI voxel signal based on fundamentally different diffusion constants in vascular capillary, bulk free, and coordinated water compartments. IDF accuracy was studied as a function of b-value set. The IDF scaling with restricted compartment size and polyvinylpirrolidone (PVP) macromolecule concentration was compared to conventional apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and isotropic kurtosis model parameters for a diffusion phantom. An in vivo application was demonstrated for six prostate cancer (PCa) cases with low and high grade lesions annotated from whole mount histopathology.
RESULTS: IDF linearly scaled with known restricted (vesicular) compartment size and PVP concentration in phantoms and increased with histopathologic score in PCa (from median 9% for atrophy up to 60% for Gleason 7). IDF via non-linear fit was independent of b-value subset selected between b = 0.1 and 2 ms/µm2 , including standard-of-care (SOC) PCa protocol. With maximum sensitivity for high grade PCa, the IDF threshold below 51% reduced false positive rate (FPR = 0/6) for low-grade PCa compared to apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC > 0.81 µm2 /ms) of PIRADS PCa scoring (FPR = 3/6).
CONCLUSION: The proposed method may provide quantitative imaging assays of cancer grading using common SOC DWI protocols.
© 2021 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical oncology DWI; collective coordinated diffusion; impeded diffusion fraction (IDF); macromolecular density; sub-cellular compartment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34775621      PMCID: PMC8810585          DOI: 10.1002/mrm.29075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   4.668


  28 in total

1.  A Systematic Review of the Existing Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Literature and Subset Meta-Analysis of PI-RADSv2 Categories Stratified by Gleason Scores.

Authors:  Emil Jernstedt Barkovich; Prasad R Shankar; Antonio C Westphalen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  LI-RADS Version 2018 Ancillary Features at MRI.

Authors:  Milena Cerny; Victoria Chernyak; Damien Olivié; Jean-Sébastien Billiard; Jessica Murphy-Lavallée; Ania Z Kielar; Khaled M Elsayes; Laurence Bourque; Jonathan C Hooker; Claude B Sirlin; An Tang
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 5.333

3.  Temporary Health Impact of Prostate MRI and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Prasad R Shankar; Katherine E Maturen; Arvin K George; Tudor Borza; Chandy Ellimoottil; Jeffrey S Montgomery; John T Wei; Brian T Denton; Matthew S Davenport
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 4.  PI-RADS Version 2: A Pictorial Update.

Authors:  Andrei S Purysko; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jelle O Barentsz; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Katarzyna J Macura
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 5.  What are normal relaxation times of tissues at 3 T?

Authors:  Jorge Zavala Bojorquez; Stéphanie Bricq; Clement Acquitter; François Brunotte; Paul M Walker; Alain Lalande
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 2.546

6.  Multicenter Repeatability Study of a Novel Quantitative Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Phantom.

Authors:  Dariya I Malyarenko; Scott D Swanson; Amaresha S Konar; Eve LoCastro; Ramesh Paudyal; Michael Z Liu; Sachin R Jambawalikar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Amita Shukla-Dave; Thomas L Chenevert
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2019-03

Review 7.  Clinical Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Diffusion MR Imaging: Past, Present, and Future.

Authors:  Mami Iima; Denis Le Bihan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Body diffusion kurtosis imaging: Basic principles, applications, and considerations for clinical practice.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Anwar R Padhani; Thomas L Chenevert; Dow-Mu Koh; Frederik De Keyzer; Bachir Taouli; Denis Le Bihan
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 9.  MRI quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by kurtosis analysis.

Authors:  Jens H Jensen; Joseph A Helpern
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.044

10.  Simplified Luminal Water Imaging for the Detection of Prostate Cancer From Multiecho T2 MR Images.

Authors:  William Devine; Francesco Giganti; Edward W Johnston; Harbir S Sidhu; Eleftheria Panagiotaki; Shonit Punwani; Daniel C Alexander; David Atkinson
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 4.813

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.