Mixture model approach to tumor classification based on pharmacokinetic measures of tumor permeability

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 549-558

  Spilker, Mary E ^a,b   Seng, Kok Yong ^a   Yao, Amy A ^a   Daldrup Link, Heike E ^c   Shames, David M ^c   Brasch, Robert C ^c   Vicini, Paolo ^a  

^a University of Washington   (United States)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI; Hierarchical modeling; Mixture model; NONMEM; Tumor permeability

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CELL MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE SEVERITY; DOSE TIME EFFECT RELATION; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; ENDOTHELIUM; HYPOTHESIS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION; VASCULARIZATION;

ANIMALS; CAPILLARY PERMEABILITY; CONTRAST MEDIA; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMARY NEOPLASMS, EXPERIMENTAL; MATHEMATICS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RATS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 26244450657     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20412     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Williams M, Pisano E, Schnall M, et al. Future directions in imaging of breast diseases. Radiology 1998;206:297-300.
2. Liu P, Debatin J, Caduff R, et al. Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast by combined quantitative and qualitative analysis. Br J Radiol 1998;71:501-509.
3. Lucht R, Knopp M, Brix G. Classification of signal-time curves from dynamic MR mammography by neural networks. Magn Reson Imaging 2001;19:51-57.
4. Nunes L, Schnall M, Orel S, et al. Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 1997;202:833-841.
5. Port R, Knopp M, Hoffman U, et al. Multicompartment analysis of gadolinium chelate kinetics: blood-tissue exchange in mammary tumors as monitored by dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10;233-241.
6. Port R, Knopp M, Brix G. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using Gd-DTPA: interindividual variability of the arterial input function and consequences for the assessment of kinetics in tumors. Magn Reson Med 2001;45:1030-1038.
7. Vaupel P, Hockel M. Blood supply, oxygenation status and metabolic micromilieu of breast cancers: characterization and therapeutic relevance. Int J Oncol 2000;17:869-879.
8. Daldrup H, Shames D, Wendland M, et al. Correlation of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with histologic tumor grade: comparison of macromolecular and small-molecular contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:941-949.
9. Turetschek K, Huber S, Floyd E, et al. MR imaging characterization of microvessels in experimental breast tumors by using a particulate contrast agent with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 2001;218:562-569.
10. Whiting B, Kelman A, Grevel J. Population pharmacokinetics. Theory and clinical application. Clin Pharmacokinet 1986;11: 387-401.
11. Sheiner L, Ludden T. Population pharmacokinetics/dynamics. Annu Rev Pharmacol 1992;32:185-209.
12. Shames D, Kuwatsuru R, Vexier V, et al. Measurement of capillary permeability to macromolecules by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging: a quantitative noninvasive technique. Magn Reson Med 1993;29:616-622.
13. 1-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223-232.
14. Boeckmann A, Sheiner L, Beal S. NONMEM users guide part IV. San Francisco: NONMEM Project Group, University of San Francisco; 1992. p 158.
15. Hussein R, Charles B, Morris R, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of perhexlline from very sparse, routine monitoring data. Ther Drug Monit 2001;23:636-643.
16. Facca B, Frame B, Triesenberg S. Population pharmacokinetics of ceftizoxime administered by continuous infusion in clinically ill adult patients. Antimicrob Agents Ch 1998;42:1783-1787.
17. Ette E, Ludden T. Population pharmacokinetic modeling: the importance of informative graphics. Pharmaceut Res 1995;12:1845-1855.
18. Schwickert H, Roberts T, Shames D, et al. Quantification of liver blood volume: comparison of ultra short TI inversion recovery echo planar imaging (ULSTCR-EPI), with dynamic 3D-gradient recalled echo imaging. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:845-852.
19. van Dijke C, Brasch R, Roberts T, et al. Mammary carcinoma model: correlation of macromolecular contrast-enhanced MR imaging characterizations of tumor microvasculature and histologic capillary density. Radiology 1996;198:813-818.
20. Turetschek K, Floyd E, Shames D, et al. Assessment of a rapid clearance blood pool MR contrast medium (P792) for assays of microvascular characteristics in experimental breast tumors with correlations to histopathology. Magn Reson Med 2001;45: 880-886.
21. Daldrup H, Brasch R. Macromolecular contrast agents for MR mammography: current status. Eur J Radiol 2003;13:354-365,
22. Weidner N, Semple J, Welch W, et al. Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis-correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1991;324:321-328.
23. Brasch R, Pham C, Shames D, et al. Assessing tumor angiogenesis using macromolecular MR imaging contrast media. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:68-74.
24. Bloom H, Richardson W. Histologic grading and prognosis in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1957;11:359-377.
25. Scarff R, Torloni H. Histological typing of breast tumors. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968. p 13-20.
26. Elston C, Ellis I. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991;19:403-410.
27. Rank F, Dombernowsky P, Jespersen N, et al. Histologic malignancy grading of invasive ductal breast carcinoma. A regression analysis of prognostic factors in low-risk carcinomas from a multicenter trial. Cancer 1987;60:1299-1305.
28. Su M, Muhler A, Lao X, et al. Tumor characterization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using MR contrast agents of various molecular weights. Magn Reson Med 1998;39:259-269.