Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: Part I. Perfusion characteristics in the female pelvis by using multiple computer-aided diagnosis perfusion analysis solutions

Radiology

Volumn 266, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 801-811

  Heye, Tobias ^a   Davenport, Matthew S ^b   Horvath, Jeffrey J ^a   Feuerlein, Sebastian ^c   Breault, Steven R ^a   Bashir, Mustafa R ^a   Merkle, Elmar M ^d   Boll, Daniel T ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PELVIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; TISSUE PERFUSION; UTERUS MYOMA;

ADULT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LEIOMYOMA; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PELVIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84874293321     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120278     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Tofts PS, Kermode AG. Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. I. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 1991;17(2): 357-367.
2. Weinmann HJ, Laniado M, Mützel W. Pharmacokinetics of GdDTPA/dimeglumine after intravenous injection into healthy volunteers. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR 1984;16(2): 167-172.
3. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic decontrast- enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10(3): 223-232.
4. Ah-See ML, Makris A, Taylor NJ, et al. Early changes in functional dynamic magnetic resonance imaging predict for pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14(20): 6580-6589.
5. Drevs J, Siegert P, Medinger M, et al. Phase I clinical study of AZD2171, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor signaling inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(21): 3045-3054.
6. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 1999;17(1): 110-119.
7. Hawighorst H, Weikel W, Knapstein PG, et al. Angiogenic activity of cervical carcinoma: assessment by functional magnetic resonance imaging-based parameters and a histomorphological approach in correlation with disease outcome. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4(10): 2305-2312.
8. Hylton N. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(20): 3293-3298.
9. O'Connor JP, Jackson A, Parker GJ, Jayson GC. DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Br J Cancer 2007;96(2): 189-195.
10. Rosen MA, Schnall MD. Dynamic contrastenhanced magnetic resonance imaging for assessing tumor vascularity and vascular effects of targeted therapies in renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13(2 pt 2): 770s-776s.
11. Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, Harris EE, Schnall MD. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breastconservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(3): 386-391.
12. Zahra MA, Hollingsworth KG, Sala E, Lomas DJ, Tan LT. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as a predictor of tumour response to radiotherapy. Lancet Oncol 2007;8(1): 63-74.
13. Flaherty KT, Rosen MA, Heitjan DF, et al. Pilot study of DCE-MRI to predict progression- free survival with sorafenib therapy in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Biol Ther 2008;7(4): 496-501.
14. Liu G, Rugo HS, Wilding G, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance im aging as a pharmacodynamic measure of response after acute dosing of AG-013736, an oral angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from a phase I study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(24): 5464-5473.
15. Stevenson JP, Rosen M, Sun W, et al. Phase I trial of the antivascular agent combretastatin A4 phosphate on a 5-day schedule to patients with cancer: magnetic resonance imaging evidence for altered tumor blood flow. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(23): 4428-4438.
16. Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer 2005;92(9): 1599-1610.
17. QIBA. Profile: DCE MRI quantification version 1.0. Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance [serial online]. http://qibawiki.rsna. org/index.php?title= DCE-MRI-tech-ctte. Published 2011. Accessed June 28, 2011.
18. Galbraith SM, Lodge MA, Taylor NJ, et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrastenhanced MRI in human muscle and tumours: comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis. NMR Biomed 2002;15(2): 132-142.
19. Ng CS, Raunig DL, Jackson EF, et al. Reproducibility of perfusion parameters in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of lung and liver tumors: effect on estimates of patient sample size in clinical trials and on individual patient responses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(2):W134-W140.
20. Jackson A, Jayson GC, Li KL, et al. Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic contrastenhanced MRI in newly presenting glioma. Br J Radiol 2003;76(903): 153-162.
21. Padhani AR, Hayes C, Landau S, Leach MO. Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic MRI of normal human tissues. NMR Biomed 2002;15(2): 143-153.
22. Ashton E, Raunig D, Ng C, Kelcz F, Mc- Shane T, Evelhoch J. Scan-rescan variability in perfusion assessment of tumors in MRI using both model and data-derived arterial input functions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28(3): 791-796.
23. Dale BM, Jesberger JA, Lewin JS, Hillenbrand CM, Duerk JL. Determining and optimizing the precision of quantitative measurements of perfusion from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;18(5): 575-584.
24. Ashton E, McShane T, Evelhoch J. Interoperator variability in perfusion assessment of tumors in MRI using automated AIF detection. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2005;8(pt 1): 451-458.
25. Ingrisch M, Dietrich O, Attenberger UI, et al. Quantitative pulmonary perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: influence of temporal resolution and signal-to-noise ratio. Invest Radiol 2010;45(1): 7-14.
26. Cheng HL, Wright GA. Rapid high-resolution T(1) mapping by variable flip angles: accurate and precise measurements in the presence of radiofrequency field inhomogeneity. Magn Reson Med 2006;55(3): 566-574.
27. Schabel MC, Morrell GR. Uncertainty in T(1) mapping using the variable flip angle method with two flip angles. Phys Med Biol 2009;54(1):N1-N8.
28. Mendichovszky IA, Cutajar M, Gordon I. Reproducibility of the aortic input function (AIF) derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCEMRI) of the kidneys in a volunteer study. Eur J Radiol 2009;71(3): 576-581.
29. Di Giovanni P, Azlan CA, Ahearn TS, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Redpath TW. The accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurement in DCE-MRI of the breast at 3 T. Phys Med Biol 2010;55(1): 121-132.
30. McAuliffe MJ, Lalonde FM, McGarry D, Gandler W, Csaky K, Trus BL. Medical image processing, analysis and visualization in clinical research. In: Computer-based medical systems, Proceedings of the 14th IEEE symposium on computer-based medical systems, Bethesda, Md, March 26-27, 2001. CBMS 2001. Los Alamitos, Calif: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2001; 381-386.
31. Chefd'hotel C, Hermosillo G, Faugeras O. Flows of diffeomorphisms for multimodal image registration [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging, Washington, DC. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2002; 753-756.
32. Chefd'hotel C, Hermosillo G, Faugeras O. A variational approach to multimodal image matching. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Variational and Level Set Methods in Computer Vision, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Los Alamitos, Calif: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2001; 21-28.
33. Walker-Samuel S, Leach MO, Collins DJ. Evaluation of response to treatment using DCE-MRI: the relationship between initial area under the gadolinium curve (IAUGC) and quantitative pharmacokinetic analysis. Phys Med Biol 2006;51(14): 3593-3602.
34. Parker GJ, Roberts C, Macdonald A, et al. Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006;56(5): 993-1000.
35. Dethlefsen LA, Prewitt JM, Mendelsohn ML. Analysis of tumor growth curves. J Natl Cancer Inst 1968;40(2): 389-405.
36. Roberts C, Issa B, Stone A, Jackson A, Waterton JC, Parker GJ. Comparative study into the robustness of compartmental modeling and model-free analysis in DCE-MRI studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23(4): 554-563.
37. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476): 307-310.
38. George ML, Dzik-Jurasz AS, Padhani AR, et al. Non-invasive methods of assessing angiogenesis and their value in predicting response to treatment in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2001;88(12): 1628-1636.
39. Alonzi R, Taylor NJ, Stirling JJ, et al. Reproducibility and correlation between quantitative and semiquantitative dynamic and intrinsic susceptibility-weighted MRI parameters in the benign and malignant human prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32(1): 155-164.
40. Ferl GZ, Xu L, Friesenhahn M, Bernstein LJ, Barboriak DP, Port RE. An automated method for nonparametric kinetic analysis of clinical DCE-MRI data: application to glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Magn Reson Med 2010;63(5): 1366-1375.
41. Fritz-Hansen T, Rostrup E, Larsson HB, Søndergaard L, Ring P, Henriksen O. Measurement of the arterial concentration of Gd-DTPA using MRI: a step toward quantitative perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Med 1996;36(2): 225-231.
42. Jaspers K, Aerts HJ, Leiner T, et al. Reliability of pharmacokinetic parameters: small vs. medium-sized contrast agents. Magn Reson Med 2009;62(3): 779-787.
43. Cheng HL. Improved correlation to quantitative DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic parameters using a modified initial area under the uptake curve (mIAUC) approach. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30(4): 864-872.
44. Cron GO, Foottit C, Yankeelov TE, Avruch LI, Schweitzer ME, Cameron I. Arterial input functions determined from MR signal magnitude and phase for quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the human pelvis. Magn Reson Med 2011;66(2): 498-504.
45. Craciunescu O, Brizel D, Cleland E, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI in head and neck cancer patients: variability of the precontrast longitudinal relaxation time (T10). Med Phys 2010;37(6): 2683-2692.
46. Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD. Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn Reson Med 1995;33(4): 564-568.
47. Kershaw LE, Buckley DL. Precision in measurements of perfusion and microvascular permeability with T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006;56(5): 986-992.
48. Schabel MC, Parker DL. Uncertainty and bias in contrast concentration measurements using spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences. Phys Med Biol 2008;53(9): 2345-2373.
49. Goh V, Shastry M, Engledow A, et al. Commercial software upgrades may significantly alter perfusion CT parameter values in colorectal cancer. Eur Radiol 2011;21(4): 744-749.