DCE-MRI of the liver: Effect of linear and nonlinear conversions on hepatic perfusion quantification and reproducibility

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 90-98

  Aronhime, Shimon ^a   Calcagno, Claudia ^a   Jajamovich, Guido H ^a   Dyvorne, Hadrien Arezki ^a   Robson, Philip ^a   Dieterich, Douglas ^a   Isabel Fiel, M ^a   Martel Laferriere, Valérie ^a   Chatterji, Manjil ^a   Rusinek, Henry ^b   Taouli, Bachir ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

fibrosis; liver; perfusion quantification

Indexed keywords

GADOBENATE DIMEGLUMINE; CONTRAST MEDIUM; GADOBENIC ACID; MEGLUMINE; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUND;

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTERY BLOOD FLOW; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISTRIBUTION VOLUME; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; HEPATITIS C; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING PHANTOM; IMAGING SOFTWARE; IN VITRO STUDY; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; LINEAR SYSTEM; LIVER BIOPSY; LIVER BLOOD FLOW; LIVER PERFUSION; MALE; MEAN TRANSIT TIME; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PORTAL VEIN BLOOD FLOW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SIGNAL INTENSITY; TIME; ALGORITHM; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC USE; LIVER; LIVER CIRCULATION; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; METABOLIC CLEARANCE RATE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HEPATITIS C; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LIVER; LIVER CIRCULATION; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; MEGLUMINE; METABOLIC CLEARANCE RATE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84902382075     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24341     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Padhani AR,. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16: 407-422.
2. Li SP, Padhani AR,. Tumor response assessments with diffusion and perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35: 745-763.
3. Ferl GZ, Port RE,. Quantification of antiangiogenic and antivascular drug activity by kinetic analysis of DCE-MRI data. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012; 92: 118-124.
4. Materne R, Smith AM, Peeters F, et al. Assessment of hepatic perfusion parameters with dynamic MRI. Magn Reson Med 2002; 47: 135-142.
5. Annet L, Materne R, Danse E, Jamart J, Horsmans Y, Van Beers BE,. Hepatic flow parameters measured with MR imaging and Doppler US: correlations with degree of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Radiology 2003; 229: 409-414.
6. Van Beers BE, Materne R, Annet L, et al. Capillarization of the sinusoids in liver fibrosis: noninvasive assessment with contrast-enhanced MRI in the rabbit. Magn Reson Med 2003; 49: 692-699.
7. Hagiwara M, Rusinek H, Lee VS, et al. Advanced liver fibrosis: diagnosis with 3D whole-liver perfusion MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology 2008; 246: 926-934.
8. Abdullah SS, Pialat JB, Wiart M, et al. Characterization of hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis by means of perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28: 390-395.
9. Patel J, Sigmund EE, Rusinek H, Oei M, Babb JS, Taouli B,. Diagnosis of cirrhosis with intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI alone and in combination: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 589-600.
10. Materne R, Van Beers BE, Smith AM, et al. Non-invasive quantification of liver perfusion with dynamic computed tomography and a dual-input one-compartmental model. Clin Sci (Lond) 2000; 99: 517-525.
11. Ronot M, Asselah T, Paradis V, et al. Liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C virus infection: differentiating minimal from intermediate fibrosis with perfusion CT. Radiology 2010; 256: 135-142.
12. Hittmair K, Gomiscek G, Langenberger K, Recht M, Imhof H, Kramer J,. Method for the quantitative assessment of contrast agent uptake in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 1994; 31: 567-571.
13. Parker GJ, Suckling J, Tanner SF, et al. Probing tumor microvascularity by measurement, analysis and display of contrast agent uptake kinetics. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 564-5674.
14. Bernstein MA KK, Zhou XJ,. Handbook of MRI pulse sequences. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. p 587.
15. Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R,. Magnetic resonance imaging, physical principles and sequence design. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.
16. DCE MRI Technical Committee. DCE MRI quantification profile, quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance. Ver. 1.0. Reviewed Draft. QIBA, July 1, 2012. Available from: https://rsna.org/QIBA-.aspx.
17. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC,. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004; 230: 652-659.
18. Do RK, Rusinek H, Taouli B,. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the liver: current status and future directions. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2009; 17: 339-349.
19. Pandharipande PV, Krinsky GA, Rusinek H, Lee VS,. Perfusion imaging of the liver: current challenges and future goals. Radiology 2005; 234: 661-673.
20. Sommer WH, Sourbron S, Huppertz A, Ingrisch M, Reiser MF, Zech CJ,. Contrast agents as a biological marker in magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: conventional and new approaches. Abdom Imaging 2012; 37: 164-179.
21. Sourbron S, Sommer WH, Reiser MF, Zech CJ,. Combined quantification of liver perfusion and function with dynamic gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2012; 263: 874-883.
22. Koh TS, Thng CH, Lee PS, et al. Hepatic metastases: in vivo assessment of perfusion parameters at dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with dual-input two-compartment tracer kinetics model. Radiology 2008; 249: 307-320.
23. Sahani DV, Holalkere NS, Mueller PR, Zhu AX,. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: CT perfusion of liver and tumor tissue-initial experience. Radiology 2007; 243: 736-743.
24. Ng CS, Chandler AG, Wei W, et al. Reproducibility of CT perfusion parameters in liver tumors and normal liver. Radiology 2011; 260: 762-770.
25. Miyazaki K, Collins DJ, Walker-Samuel S, et al. Quantitative mapping of hepatic perfusion index using MR imaging: a potential reproducible tool for assessing tumour response to treatment with the antiangiogenic compound BIBF 1120, a potent triple angiokinase inhibitor. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1414-1421.
26. Medved M, Karczmar G, Yang C, et al. Semiquantitative analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in cancer patients: variability and changes in tumor tissue over time. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20: 122-128.
27. 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: W134-140.
28. 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: 554-563.
29. Galbraith SM, Lodge MA, Taylor NJ, et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in human muscle and tumours: comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis. NMR Biomed 2002; 15: 132-142.
30. 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.
31. Ashton E, Raunig D, Ng C, Kelcz F, McShane 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: 791-796.
32. Henderson E, McKinnon G, Lee TY, Rutt BK,. A fast 3D look-locker method for volumetric T1 mapping. Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 17: 1163-1171.
33. Look DC LD,. Time saving in measurement of NMR and EPR relaxation times. Rev Sci Instrum 1970; 41: 250-251.
34. Katsube T, Okada M, Kumano S, et al. Estimation of liver function using T1 mapping on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2011; 46: 277-283.
35. Dobre MC, Ugurbil K, Marjanska M,. Determination of blood longitudinal relaxation time (T1) at high magnetic field strengths. Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25: 733-735.
36. Schabel MC, Parker DL,. Uncertainty and bias in contrast concentration measurements using spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53: 2345-2373.
37. Jones RA, Easley K, Little SB, Scherz H, Kirsch AJ, Grattan-Smith JD,. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR urography in the evaluation of pediatric hydronephrosis. Part 1. Functional assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 1598-1607.
38. Hsu CY, Shen YC, Yu CW, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers predict survival and response in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib and metronomic tegafur/uracil. J Hepatol 2011; 55: 858-865.
39. Thng CH, Koh TS, Collins DJ, Koh DM,. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging of the liver. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 1598-1609.
40. Willatt JM, Hussain HK, Adusumilli S, Marrero JA,. MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver: challenges and controversies. Radiology 2008; 247: 311-330.
41. Bruix J, Sherman M, Practice Guidelines Committee AAftSoLD. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2005; 42: 1208-1236.
42. Kershaw LE, Cheng HL,. A general dual-bolus approach for quantitative DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 29: 160-166.