Assessment of quantitative perfusion parameters by dynamic contrast-enhanced sonography using a deconvolution method: An in vitro and in vivo study

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 595-608

  Gauthier, Marianne ^a   Tabarout, Farid ^b   Leguerney, Ingrid ^a   Polrot, Mélanie ^b   Pitre, Stéphanie ^a   Peronneau, Pierre ^a   Lassau, Nathalie ^a,c  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b INSERM   (France)

^c INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

Author keywords

Angiogenesis; Arterial input function; Dynamic contrast enhanced sonography; Functional imaging; Linear raw data

Indexed keywords

FUNCTION EVALUATION; FUNCTIONS; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SILICONES; TUMORS; ULTRASONIC APPLICATIONS; ULTRASONIC IMAGING;

ANGIOGENESIS; ARTERIAL INPUT FUNCTION; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED; FUNCTIONAL IMAGING; LINEAR RAW DATA;

ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

CONTRAST AGENT BR1; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; PHOSPHOLIPID; SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; MELANOMA; METHODOLOGY; MOUSE; NUDE MOUSE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCINTIGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MELANOMA; MICE; MICE, NUDE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PERFUSION IMAGING; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PHOSPHOLIPIDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84864236923     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: 15509613     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2012.31.4.595     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Lanza GM, Caruthers SD, Winter PM, et al. Angiogenesis imaging with vascular-constrained particles: the why and how. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37(suppl 1):S114-S126.
2. Eisenbrey JR, Forsberg F. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for molecular imaging of angiogenesis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37(suppl 1):S138-S146.
3. Kalva SP, Namasivayam S, Vasuedo Sahani D. Imaging angiogenesis. In: Teicher BA, Ellis LM (eds). Cancer Drug Discovery and Development: Antiangiogenic Agents in Cancer Therapy. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2008:189-203.
4. Lassau N, Chami L, Péronneau P. Imagerie de contraste ultrasonore pour l'évaluation précoce des thérapeutiques ciblées. In: Tranquart F, Correas JM, Bouakaz A (eds). Echographie de Contraste. Paris, France: Springer; 2007:81-86.
5. Miller JC, Pien HH, Sahani D, Sorensen AG, Thrall JH. Imaging angiogenesis: applications and potential for drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:172-187. (Pubitemid 40277367)
6. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:205-216.
7. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:228-247.
8. de Marco G, Dassonvalle P, Henry-Feugeas M, Onen F, Idy-Peretti I. Cerebral perfusion: dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging, part 2-vascular models and data extraction. Médecine Nucléaire Imagerie Fonctionnelle et Métabolique 2004; 28:35-48. (Pubitemid 38332431)
9. Lythgoe DJ, Østergaard L, William SC, et al. Quantitative perfusion imaging in carotid artery stenosis using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging2000; 18:1-11. (Pubitemid 30036136)
10. Rumboldt Z, Al-Okaili R, Deveikis JP. Perfusion CT for head and neck tumors: pilot study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005; 26:1178-1185. (Pubitemid 43821970)
11. Quaia C, Ying HS, Optican LM. The viscoelastic properties of passive eye muscle in primates, III: force elicited by natural elongations. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9595.
12. Schneider M. Characteristics of SonoVue. Echocardiography 1999; 16:743-746.
13. Greis C. Technology overview: SonoVue (Bracco, Milan). Eur Radiol 2004; 14(suppl 8):11-15.
14. Quaia E, Calliada F, Bertolotto M, et al. Characterization of focal liver lesions with contrast-specific US modes and a sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble contrast agent: diagnostic performance and confidence. Radiology 2004; 232:420-430. (Pubitemid 38971282)
15. von Herbay A, Vogt C, Willers R, Haussinger D. Real-time imaging with the sonographic contrast agent SonoVue: differentiation between benign and malignant hepatic lesions. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23:1557-1568. (Pubitemid 39586861)
16. Hamilton WF, Moore JW, Kinsman MJ. Studies on the circulation, IV: further analysis of the injection method and of changes in hemodynamics under physiological and pathological conditions. Am J Physiol 1932; 99:534-551.
17. Kinsman MJ, Moore JW, Hamilton WF. Studies on the circulation, I: injection methods-physical and mathematical considerations. Am J Physiol 1929; 89:322-330.
18. Mischi M, Del Prete Z, Korsten HHM. Indicator dilution techniques in cardiovascular quantification. In: Leondes CT (ed). Biomechanical Systems Technology: Cardiovascular Systems. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co; 2007:89-156.
19. Li PC, Yang MJ. Transfer function analysis of ultrasonic time-intensity measurements. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:1493-1500.
20. Lampaskis M, Averkiou M. Investigation of the relationship of nonlinear backscattered ultrasound intensity with microbubble concentration at low MI. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010; 36:306-312.
21. Burns PN, Wilson SR, Simpson DH. Pulse inversion imaging of liver blood flow: improved method for characterizing focal masses with microbubble contrast. Invest Radiol 2000; 35:58-71. (Pubitemid 30033608)
22. Whittingham TA. Contrast-specific imaging techniques: technical perspective. In: Quaia E (ed). Contrast Media in Ultrasonography: Basic Principles and Clinical Applications. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2005:43-70.
23. Verbeek XA, Willigers JM, Prinzen FW, Peschar M, Ledoux LA, Hoeks AP. High-resolution functional imaging with ultrasound contrast agents based on RF processing in an in vivo kidney experiment. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001; 27:223-233. (Pubitemid 32303475)
24. Correas JM, Burns PN, Lai X, Qi X. Infusion versus bolus of an ultrasound contrast agent: in vivo dose-response measurements of BR1. Invest Radiol 2000; 35:72-79. (Pubitemid 30033609)
25. Lavisse S, Lejeune P, Rouffiac V, et al. Early quantitative evaluation of a tumor vasculature disruptive agent AVE8062 using dynamic contrastenhanced ultrasonography. Invest Radiol 2008; 43:100-111.
26. Vicenzini E, Delfini R, Magri F, et al. Semiquantitative human cerebral perfusion assessment with ultrasound in brain space-occupying lesions: preliminary data. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:685-692.
27. Ignee A, Jedrejczyk M, Schuessler G, Jakubowski W, Dietrich CF. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the liver for time-intensity curves: reliability and potential sources of errors. Eur J Radiol 2010; 73:153-158.
28. Xiong Z, Cheng Z, Zhang X, et al. Imaging chemically modified adenovirus for targeting tumors expressing integrin αvβ3 in living mice with mutant herpes simplex virus type 1 thymidine kinase PET reporter gene. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:130-139. (Pubitemid 46768522)
29. Calamante F, Gadian DG, Connelly A. Delay and dispersion effects in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI: simulations using singular value decomposition. Magn Reson Med 2000; 44:466-473.
30. Willats L, Connelly A, Calamante F. Improved deconvolution of perfusion MRI data in the presence of bolus delay and dispersion. Magn Reson Med 2006; 56:146-156.
31. Sourbron S, Dujardin M, Makkat S, Luypaert R. Pixel-by-pixel deconvolution of bolus-tracking data: optimization and implementation. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52:429-447. (Pubitemid 46646462)
32. Calamante F, Gadian DG, Connelly A. Quantification of bolus-tracking MRI: improved characterization of the tissue residue function using Tikhonov regularization. Magn Reson Med 2003; 50:1237-1247. (Pubitemid 37494025)
33. Østergaard L, Weisskoff RM, Chesler DA, Gyldensted C, Rosen BR. High-resolution measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages, part I: mathematical approach and statistical analysis. Magn Reson Med 1996; 36:486-492.
34. Valentinuzzi ME, Montaldo Volachec EM. Discrete deconvolution. Med Biol Eng 1975; 13:123-125.
35. Neittaanmaki P, Rudnicki M, Savini A. Inverse Problems and Optimal Design in Electricity and Magnetism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc; 1996.
36. Hadamard J. Lecture on Cauchy's Problem in Linear Partial Differential Equations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1923.
37. Hansen C. Analysis of discrete ill-posed problems by means of the L-curve. SIAM Rev 1992; 34:561-580.
38. Liu HL, Pu Y, Liu Y, et al. Cerebral blood flow measurement by dynamic contrast MRI using singular value decomposition with an adaptive threshold. Magn Reson Med 1999; 42:167-172. (Pubitemid 29325626)
39. Østergaard L. Cerebral perfusion imaging by bolus tracking. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 15:3-9. (Pubitemid 38437541)
40. Murase K, Yamazaki Y, Miyazaki S. Deconvolution analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced data based on singular value decomposition optimized by generalized cross validation. Magn Reson Med Sci 2004; 3:165-175.
41. de Bazelaire C, Mathieu O, Fournier L, et al. Guide d'interpré tation en imagerie fonctionnelle. J Radiol 2006; 87:1157.
42. Taylor BN, Kuyatt CE. NIST Technical Note 1297: Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 1994.
43. Lassau N, Koscielny S, Chebil M, et al. Functional imaging using DCEUS: which parameter for the early evaluation of antiangiogenic therapies [abstract]? J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(suppl):3524.
44. Lassau N, Koscielny S, Albiges L, et al. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib: early evaluation of treatment response using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16:1216-1225.
45. Lassau N, Lacroix J, Aziza R, Vilgrain V, Taeb S, Koscielny S. French multicentric prospective evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for the evaluation of antiangiogenic treatments [abstract]. Paper presented at: 95th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America; November 29-December 4, 2009; Chicago, IL
46. Kwee JK, Mitidieri E, Affonso OR. Lowered superoxide dismutase in highly metastatic B16 melanoma cells. Cancer Lett 1991; 57:199-202.
47. Ohira T, Ohe Y, Heike Y, et al. In vitro and in vivo growth of B16F10 melanoma cells transfected with interleukin-4 cDNA and gene therapy with the transfectant. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1994; 120:631-635. (Pubitemid 24316944)
48. Yerlikaya A, Erin N. Differential sensitivity of breast cancer and melanoma cells to proteasome inhibitor Velcade. Int J Mol Med 2008; 22:817-823.
49. Gauthier M, Leguerney I, Thalmensi J, et al. Estimation of intra-operator variability in perfusion parameter measurements using DCE-US. World J Radiol 2011; 3:70-81.
50. Gupta LC, Sahu UC. Diagnostic Ultrasound. New Delhi, India: Jaypee Brothers Publishers; 2007.
51. Hedrick W, Hykes D, Starchman D. Ultrasound Physics and Instrumentation. St Louis, MO: CV Mosby Co; 1995.
52. Goldstein A, Powis RL. Medical ultrasonic diagnostics. In: Papadakis P (ed). Ultrasonic Instruments and Devices: Reference for Modern Instrumentation, Techniques, and Technology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1999:46-193.
53. Sarkar K, Katiyar A, Jain P. Growth and dissolution of an encapsulated contrast microbubble: effects of encapsulation permeability. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009; 35:1385-1396.
54. Kwan JJ, Borden MA. Microbubble dissolution in a multigas environment. Langmuir 2010; 26:6542-6548.
55. Casciaro S, Errico RP, Conversano F, Demitri C, Distante A. Experimental investigations of nonlinearities and destruction mechanisms of an experimental phospholipid-based ultrasound contrast agent. Invest Radiol2007; 42:95-104. (Pubitemid 46104890)
56. Ludemann L, Wust P, Gellermann J. Perfusion measurement using DCEMRI: implications for hyperthermia. Int J Hyperthermia 2008; 24:91-96. (Pubitemid 351167622)
57. Calamante F, Gadian DG, Connelly A. Quantification of perfusion using bolus-tracking magnetic resonance imaging in stroke: assumptions, limitations, and potential implications for clinical use. Stroke2002; 33:1146-1151. (Pubitemid 34293606)
58. Duhamel G, Schlaug G, Alsop DC. Measurement of arterial input functions for dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging using echoplanar images: comparison of physical simulations with in vivo results. Magn Reson Med 2006; 55:514-523. (Pubitemid 43352549)
59. Bisdas S, Konstantinou GN, Gurung J, et al. Effect of the arterial input function on the measured perfusion values and infarct volumetric in acute cerebral ischemia evaluated by perfusion computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2007; 42:147-156. (Pubitemid 46232819)
60. Thijs VN, Somford DM, Bammer R, Robberecht W, Moseley ME, Albers GW. Influence of arterial input function on hypoperfusion volumes measured with perfusion-weighted imaging. Stroke 2004; 35:94-98. (Pubitemid 38057598)
61. van Osch MJ, Vonken EJ, Bakker CJ, Viergever MA. Correcting partial volume artifacts of the arterial input function in quantitative cerebral perfusion MRI. Magn Reson Med 2001; 45:477-485. (Pubitemid 32173276)
62. Maxwell RJ, Wilson J, Prise VE, et al. Evaluation of the anti-vascular effects of combretastatin in rodent tumours by dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. NMR Biomed 2002; 15:89-98. (Pubitemid 34213398)
63. Marcus CD, Ladam-Marcus V, Cucu C, Bouche O, Lucas L, Hoeffel C. Imaging techniques to evaluate the response to treatment in oncology: current standards and perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2009; 72:217-238.
64. 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. (Pubitemid 38697598)
65. Morgan B, Utting JF, Higginson A, Thomas AL, Steward WP, Horsfield MA. A simple, reproducible method for monitoring the treatment of tumours using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Br J Cancer 2006; 94:1420-1427. (Pubitemid 43772276)
66. Wells P, Jones T, Price P. Assessment of inter- and intrapatient variability in C15O2 positron emission tomography measurements of blood flow in patients with intra-abdominal cancers. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9:6350-6356. (Pubitemid 38031819)
67. Groves AM, Goh V, Rajasekharan S, et al. CT coronary angiography: quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion using test bolus data- initial experience. Eur Radiol 2008; 18:2155-2163.