A unified impulse response model for DCE-MRI

Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Volumn 68, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1632-1646

  Schabel, Matthias C ^a,b  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

brain tumor; DCE MRI; perfusion imaging; pharmacokinetic modeling

Indexed keywords

BRAIN; IMPULSE RESPONSE; MONTE CARLO METHODS; TUMORS;

BRAIN TUMORS; DCE-MRI; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; EXTRACTION OF INFORMATION; IMPULSE RESPONSE FUNCTIONS; PERFUSION IMAGING; PHARMACOKINETIC MODEL; TRANSIT-TIME DISTRIBUTIONS;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

ANAPLASTIC MENINGIOMA; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GAMMA CAPILLARY TRANSIT TIME MODEL; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IN VIVO STUDY; MENINGIOMA; MODEL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PLEOMORPHIC XANTHOASTROCYTOMA; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; TISSUE HOMOGENATE;

EID: 84867892022     PISSN: 07403194     EISSN: 15222594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24162     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, Larsson HB, Lee TY, Mayr NA, Parker GJ, Port RE, Taylor J, Weisskoff RM,. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 223-232.
2. Buckley DL,. Uncertainty in the analysis of tracer kinetics using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Magn Reson Med 2002; 47: 601-606.
3. Tofts PS,. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 91-101.
4. Kershaw LE, Cheng HLM,. Temporal resolution and SNR requirements for accurate DCE-MRI data analysis using the AATH model. Magn Reson Med 2010; 64: 1772-1780.
5. Koh TS, Cheong DLH, Hou Z,. Issues of discontinuity in the impulse residue function for deconvolution analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data. Magn Reson Med 2011; 66: 886-892.
6. St. Lawrence KSS, Lee TY,. An adiabatic approximation to the tissue homogeneity model for water exchange in the brain: I. theoretical derivation. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1998; 18: 1365-1377.
7. Brix G, Ravesh MS, Zwick S, Griebel J, Delorme S,. On impulse response functions computed from dynamic contrast-enhanced image data by algebraic deconvolution and compartmental modeling. Phys Med Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.ejmp.2011.03.004.
8. Cheong LHD, Lim CCT, Koh TS,. Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT of intracranial meningioma: comparison of distributed and compartmental tracer kinetic models-initial results. Radiology 2004; 232: 921-930.
9. Hoffmann U, Brix G, Knopp MV, Hess T, Lorenz WJ,. Pharmacokinetic mapping of the breast: a new method for dynamic mr mammography. Magn Reson Med 1995; 33: 506-514.
10. Larsson HBW, Courivaud F, Rostrup E, Hansen AE,. Measurement of brain perfusion, blood volume, and blood-brain barrier permeability, using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1)-weighted MRI at 3 tesla. Magn Magn Reson Med 2009; 62: 1270-1281.
11. Luypaert R, Sourbron S, Makkat S, de Mey J,. Error estimation for perfusion parameters obtained using the two-compartment exchange model in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 6431.
12. Sourbron SP, Buckley DL,. On the scope and interpretation of the Tofts models for DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Med 2011; 66.
13. Bartoš M, Keunen O, Jiřík R, Bjerkvig R, Taxt T,. Perfusion analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance images using a fully continuous tissue homogeneity model with mean transit. Anal Biomed Sign Images 2010; 20: 269-274.
14. Koh TS, Zeman V, Darko J, Lee TY, Milosevic MF, Haider M, Warde P, Yeung IW,. The inclusion of capillary distribution in the adiabatic tissue homogeneity model of blood flow. Physics in medicine and biology 2001; 46: 1519-1538.
15. Schabel MC, Morrell GR,. Uncertainty in T(1) mapping using the variable flip angle method with two flip angles. Phys Med Biol 2009; 54: N1-N8.
16. Schabel MC, Dibella EVR, Jensen RL, Salzman KL,. A model-constrained Monte Carlo method for blind arterial input function estimation in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: II. In vivo results. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 4807-4823.
17. Schabel MC, Parker DL,. Uncertainty and bias in contrast concentration measurements using spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53: 2345-2373.
18. Schabel MC, Fluckiger JU, Dibella EVR,. A model-constrained Monte Carlo method for blind arterial input function estimation in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: I. simulations. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 4783 - 4806.
19. Zhang JL, Rusinek H, Bokacheva L, Chen Q, Storey P, Lee VS,. Use of cardiac output to improve measurement of input function in quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 656-665.
20. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ,. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005; 40: 715-724.
21. Murase K,. Efficient method for calculating kinetic parameters using T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2004; 51: 858-862.
22. Koh TS, Wu XY, Cheong LH, Lim CCT,. Assessment of perfusion by dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging using a deconvolution approach based on regression and singular value decomposition. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2004; 23: 1532-1542.
23. Hansen P,. Regularization tools version 4.0 for MATLAB 7.3. Numerical algorithms 2007; 46: 189-194.
24. Rose CJ, Mills SJ, O'Connor JPB, Buonaccorsi GA, Roberts C, Watson Y, Cheung S, Zhao S, Whitcher B, Jackson A, Parker GJM,. Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameter maps. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62: 488-499.
25. Hoskins R,. Delta functions: an introduction to generalised functions. Westergate: Horwood; 2009: 280 p.