Correlation between estimates of tumor perfusion from microbubble contrast-enhanced sonography and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 487-497

  Yankeelov, Thomas E ^a,b   Niermann, Kenneth J ^a   Huamani, Jessica ^a   Kim, Dong W ^a   Quarles, Christopher C ^a   Fleischer, Arthur C ^a   Hallahan, Dennis E ^a   Price, Ronald R ^a   Gore, John C ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; Microbubble contrast enhanced sonography; Microbubbles; Tumor

Indexed keywords

BLOOD; BUBBLES (IN FLUIDS); CELLS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MEDICINE; ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT;

DYNAMIC CONTRAST-ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; INTRATUMORAL HETEROGENEITY; MICROBUBBLE CONTRAST-ENHANCED SONOGRAPHY; PSEUDO STEADY STATE; VOXEL ANALYSIS;

TUMORS;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; OCTAFLUOROPROPANE; PERFLUTREN;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUNG CARCINOMA; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MICROBUBBLE; MICROBUBBLE CONTRAST ENHANCED SONOGRAPHY; MOUSE; MOUSE STRAIN; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; STEADY STATE; TUMOR BLOOD FLOW;

EID: 33646058887     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2006.25.4.487     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Caravan P, Ellison JJ, McMurry TJ, Lauffer RB. Gadolinium (III) chelates as MRI contrast agents: structure, dynamics, and applications. Chem Rev 1999; 99:2293-2352.
2. Padhani AR. MRI for assessing antivascular cancer treatments. Br J Radiol 2003; 76:S60-S80.
3. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of a diffusible tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10:223-232.
4. Daniel BL, Yen YF, Glover GH, et al. Breast disease: dynamic spiral MR imaging. Radiology 1998; 209:499-509.
5. Robinson SP, McIntyre DJO, Checkley D, et al. Tumour dose response to the antivascular agent ZD6126 assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Cancer 2003; 88:1592-1597.
6. Checkley D, Tessier JJL, Wedge SR, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of vascular changes induced by the VEGF-signalling inhibitor ZD4190 in human tumour xenografts. Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 21:475-482.
7. Kelcz F, Furman-Haran E, Grobgeld, Degani H. Clinical testing of high-spatial-resolution parametric contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:1485-1492.
8. Daldrup-Link HE, Rydland J, Helbich TH, et al. Quantification of breast tumor microvascular permeability with feruglose-enhanced MR imaging: initial phase II multicenter trial. Radiology 2003; 229:885-892.
9. Brasch R, Turetschek K. MRI characterization and grading angiogenesis using a macromolecular contrast media: status report. Eur J Radiol 2000; 23:148-155.
10. Evelhoch JL, LoRusso PM, He Z, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of the response of murine and human tumors to the vascular-targeting agent ZD6126. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10:3650-3657.
11. Tuncbilek N, Karakas HM, Altaner S. Dynamic MRI in indirect estimation of microvessel density, histologic grade, and prognosis in colorectal adenocarcinomas. Adbom Imaging 2004; 29:166-172.
12. Cosgrove D, Eckersley R, Blomley M, Harvey C. Quantification of blood flow. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:1338-1344.
13. Yeh C-K, Yang M-J, Li P-C. Contrast-specific ultrasonic flow measurements based on both input and output time intensities. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:671-678.
14. Wei K, Jayaweera AR, Firoozan S, Links A, Skyba DM, Kaul S. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered as a constant venous infusion. Circulation 1998; 97:473-483.
15. Dayton PA, Ferrara KW. Targeted imaging using ultrasound. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16:362-377.
16. Harvey CJ, Blomley MJK, Eckersley RJ, Cosgrove DO. Developments in ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol, 2001; 11:675-689.
17. Krix M, Kiessling F, Vosseler S, et al. Comparison of intermittent-bolus contrast imaging with conventional power Doppler sonography: quantification of tumour perfusion in small animals. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:1093-1103.
18. Cosgrove D. Angiogenesis imaging: ultrasound. Br J Radiol. 2003; 76(special issue 1):S43-S49.
19. Hohmann J, Albrecht T, Oldenburg A, Skrok J, Wolf KJ. Liver metastases in cancer: detection with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Abdom Imaging 2004; 29:669-681.
20. van Wamel A, Bouakaz A, Bernard B, ten Cate F, de Jong N. Radionuclide tumour therapy with ultrasound contrast microbubbles. Ultrasonics 2004; 42:903-906.
21. Krix M, Kiessling F, Vosseler S, et al. Sensitive noninvasive monitoring of tumor perfusion during antiangiogenic therapy by intermittent bolus-contrast power Doppler sonography. Cancer Res 2003; 63:8264-8270.
22. Wei K, Skyba DM, Firschke C, Jayaweera AR, Kindner JR, Kaul S. Interactions between microbubbles and ultrasound: in vitro and in vivo observations. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29:1081-1088.
23. Skyba DM, Price RJ, Linka AZ, Skalak TC, Kaul S. Direct in vivo visualization of intravascular destruction of microbubbles by ultrasound and its local effects on tissue. Circulation 1998; 98:290-293.
24. Walker KW, Pantely GA, Sahn DJ. Ultrasound-mediated destruction of contrast agents: effect of ultrasound intensity, exposure, and frequency. Invest Radiol 1997; 32:728-734.
25. Cox RW. AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. Comput Biomed Res 1996; 29:162-173.
26. Yankeelov TE, Rooney WD, Xin Li, Springer CS. Variation of the relaxographic "shutter-speed" for transcytolemmal water exchange affects CR bolus-tracking curve shape. Magn Reson Med 2003; 50:1151-1169.
27. Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R. Spin density, T1 and T2 quantification methods. In: Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Physical Principles and Sequence Design. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss; 1999:654.
28. Landis CS, Li X, Telang FW, et al. Equilibrium transcytolemmal water-exchange kinetics in skeletal muscle in vivo. Magn Reson Med 1999; 42:467-478.
29. Li R. Automatic placement of regions of interest in medical images using image registration, [master's thesis]. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University; 2001.
30. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, et al. Numerical recipes in C. 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
31. Yankeelov TE, Luci JJ, Lepage M, et al. Quantitative pharmacokinetic analysis of DCE-MRI data without an arterial input function: a reference region model. Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23:519-529.
32. Kovar DA, Lewis M, Karczmar GS. A new method for imaging perfusion and contrast extraction fraction: input functions derived from reference tissues. J Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 8:1126-1134.
33. Yang C, Karczmar GS, Medved M, Stadler WM. Estimating the arterial input function using two reference tissues in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies: fundamental concepts and simulations. Magn Reson Med 2004; 52:1110-1117.
34. Donahue KM, Weiskoff RM, Parmelee DJ, et al. Dynamic Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI measurement of tissue cell volume fraction. Magn Reson Med 1995; 34:423-432.
35. Galie M, D'Onofrio M, Montani M, et al. Tumor vessel compression hinders perfusion of ultrasonographic contrast agents. Neoplasia 2005; 7:528-536.
36. Cha S, Johnson G, Wadghiri YZ, et al. Dynamic, contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI in mouse gliomas: correlation with histopathology. Magn Reson Med 2003; 49:848-855.