Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging assessment of kidney function and renal masses: Single slice versus whole organ/tumor

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 49, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 720-727

  Winter, Katharina S ^a   Helck, Andreas D ^a   Ingrisch, Michael ^a   Staehler, Michael ^a   Stief, Christian ^a   Sommer, Wieland H ^a   Braunagel, Margarita ^a   Kazmierczak, Philipp M ^a   Reiser, Maximilian F ^a   Nikolaou, Konstantin ^a,b   Notohamiprodjo, Mike ^a,b  

^a LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

3D analysis; DCE MRI; Kidney function; RCC

Indexed keywords

GADOBUTROL; CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; GLOMERULUS FILTRATION RATE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KIDNEY PLASMA FLOW; KIDNEY TUMOR; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PERMEABILITY; PLASMA VOLUME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; CARCINOMA, RENAL CELL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC USE; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING; KIDNEY; KIDNEY DISEASES; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

CARCINOMA, RENAL CELL; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; KIDNEY; KIDNEY DISEASES; KIDNEY NEOPLASMS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84925944781     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000075     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Winter JD, St Lawrence KS, Cheng HL. Quantification of renal perfusion: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. JMagn Resort Imaging. 2011;34:608-615.
2. Tofts PS, Cutajar M, Mendichovszky IA, et al. Precise measurement of renal filtration and vascular parameters using a two-compartment model for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the kidney gives realistic normal values. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1320-1330.
3. Notohamiprodjo M, Reiser MF, Sourbron SP. Diffusion and perfusion of the kidney. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76:337-347.
4. Sadick M, Schock D, Kraenzlin B, et al. Morphologic and dynamic renal imaging with assessment of glomerular filtration rate in a pcy-mouse model using a clinical 3.0 Tesla scanner. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:469-175.
5. Notohamiprodjo M, Sourbron S, Staehler M, et al. Measuring perfusion and permeability in renal cell carcinoma with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a pilot study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31:490-501.
6. Palmowski M, Schifferdecker I, Zwick S, et al. Tumor perfusion assessed by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI correlates to the grading of renal cell carcinoma: initial results. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74:el76-el80.
7. Notohamiprodjo M, Pedersen M, Glaser C, et al. Comparison of Gd-DTPA and Gd-BOPTA for studying renal perfusion and filtration. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:595-607.
8. Braunagel M, Radler E, Ingrisch M, et al. Perfusion and permeability DCE-MRI measurements in renal cell carcinoma and metastases: effect of ROI size and positioning on inter- and intraobserver variability. Paper presented at: European Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology (ESMRMB), Abstract 183, Lisbon, PT: October 4-6, 2012.
9. Bokacheva L, Rusinek H, Zhang JL, et al. Assessment of renal function with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin North Am. 2008;16:597-611, viii.
10. Cutajar M, Mendichovszky IA, Tofts PS, et al. The importance of AIF ROI selection in DCE-MRI renography: reproducibility and variability of renal perfusion and filtration. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74:el54-el60.
11. Buckley DL, Shurrab AE, Cheung CM, et al. Measurement of single kidney function using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison of two models in human subjects. JMagn Reson Imaging. 2006;24:1117-1123.
12. Michaely HJ, Sourbron S, Dietrich O, et al. Functional renal MR imaging: an overview. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32:758-771.
13. Song T, Laine AF, Chen Q, et al. Optimal k-space sampling for dynamic contrastenhanced MRI with an application to MR renography. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61:1242-1248.
14. Renken NS, Krestin GP Magnetic resonance imaging of the kidney. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2005;26:153-161.
15. Notohamiprodjo M, Glaser C, Horng A, et al. Dynamic 3D-MR-angiography for assessing rheumatoid disease of the hand-a feasibility study. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:951-956.
16. Shen W, Chen J, Gantz M, et al. A single MRI slice does not accurately predict visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue changes during weight loss. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md). 2012;20:2458-2463.
17. So R, Sasai H, Matsuo T, et al. Multiple-slice magnetic resonance imaging can detect visceral adipose tissue reduction more accurately than single-slice imaging. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66:1351-1355.
18. Attenberger UI, Ingrisch M, Dietrich O, et al. Time-resolved 3D pulmonary perfusion MRI: comparison of different k-space acquisition strategies at 1.5 and 3 T. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:525-531.
19. Lim RP, Shapiro M, Wang EY, et al. 3D time-resolved MR angiography (MRA) of the carotid arteries with time-resolved imaging with stochastic trajectories: comparison with 3D contrast-enhanced Bolus-Chase MRA and 3D time-of-flight MRA. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:1847-1854.
20. Nael K, Krishnam M, Ruehm SG, et al. Time-resolved MR angiography in the evaluation of central thoracic venous occlusive disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1731-1738.
21. Sourbron S, Biffar A, Ingrisch M, et al. PMI: platform for research in medical imaging. Magn Reson Mater Phy 2009;22:539.
22. Ingrisch M, Sourbron S. Tracer-kinetic modeling of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and CT: a primer. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2013;40:281-300.
23. Luypaert R, Sourbron S, Makkat S, et al. Error estimation for perfusion parameters obtained using the two-compartment exchange model in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:6431-6443.
24. Notohamiprodjo M, Staehler M, Steiner N, et al. Combined diffusion-weighted, blood oxygen level-dependent, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for characterization and differentiation of renal cell carcinoma. Acad Radiol. 2013;20:685-693.
25. Sourbron SP, Buckley DL. Tracer kinetic modelling in MRI: estimating perfusion and capillary permeability. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:R1-R33.
26. Sourbron SP, Buckley DL. Classic models for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. NMR Biomed. 2013;26:1004-1027.
27. Attenberger UI, Sourbron SP, Notohamiprodjo M, et al. MR-based semi-automated quantification of renal functional parameters with a two-compartment model-an interobserver analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65:59-65.
28. Gutierrez DR, Wells K, Diaz Montesdeoca O, et al. Partial volume effects in dynamic contrast magnetic resonance renal studies. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:221-229.
29. Chen JJ, Smith MR, Frayne R. The impact of partial-volume effects in dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22:390-399.
30. Michaely HJ, Schoenberg SO, Oesingmann N, et al. Renal artery stenosis: functional assessment with dynamic MR perfusion measurements-feasibility study. Radiology. 2006;238:586-596.
31. Michaely HJ, Sourbron SP, Buettner C, et al. Temporal constraints in renal perfusion imaging with a 2-compartment model. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:120-128.
32. Feng L, Grimm R, Tobias Block K, et al. Golden-angle radial sparse parallel MRI: combination of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and golden-angle radial sampling for fast and flexible dynamic volumetric MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2013. [Epub ahead of print].
33. Zollner FG, Weisser G, Reich M, et al. UMM perfusion: an open source software tool towards quantitative MRI perfusion analysis in clinical routine. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26:344-352.
34. Murakami M, Zhao S, Zhao Y, et al. Evaluation of changes in the tumor microenvironment after sorafenib therapy by sequential histology and 18F-fluoromisonidazole hypoxia imaging in renal cell carcinoma. Int J Oncol. 2012;41:1593-1600.
35. Coenegrachts K, Bols A, Haspeslagh M, et al. Prediction and monitoring of treatment effect using T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in colorectal liver metastases: potential of whole tumour ROI and selective ROI analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:3870-3876.
36. Reiner CS, Roessle M, Thiesler T, et al. Computed tomography perfusion imaging of renal cell carcinoma: systematic comparison with histopathological angiogenic and prognostic markers. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:183-191.
37. Helck A, Wessely M, Notohamiprodjo M, et al. CT perfusion technique for assessment of early kidney allograft dysfunction: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2475-2481.
38. Chen C, Liu Q, Hao Q, et al. Study of 320-slice dynamic volume CT perfusion in different pathologic types of kidney tumor: preliminary results. PloS One. 2014;9:e85522.
39. Chandarana H, Kang SK, Wong S, et al. Diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of renal tumors with histopathologic correlation. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:688-696.
40. Lanzman RS, Ljimani A, Pentang G, et al. Kidney transplant: functional assessment with diffusion-tensor MR imaging at 3 T. Radiology. 2013;266:218-225.
41. Gloviczki ML, Glockner J, Gomez SI, et al. Comparison of 1.5 and 3 T BOLD MR to study oxygenation of kidney cortex and medulla in human renovascular disease. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:566-571.
42. Ebrahimi B, Gloviczki M, Woollard JR, et al. Compartmental analysis of renal BOLD MRI data: introduction and validation. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:175-182.
43. Helck A, D'Anastasi M, Notohamiprodjo M, et al. Multimodality imaging using ultrasound image fusion in renal lesions. Clinical Hemorheol Microcirc. 2012;50:79-89.
44. Helck A, Sommer WH, Wessely M, et al. Benefit of contrast enhanced ultrasound for detection of ischaemic lesions and arterio venous fistulas in renal transplants-a feasibility study. Clinical Hemorheol Microcirc. 2011;48:149-160.
45. Wu WC, Su MY, Chang CC, et al. Renal perfusion 3-T MR imaging: a comparative study of arterial spin labeling and dynamic contrast-enhanced techniques. Radiology. 2011;261:845-853.
46. Heusch P, Wittsack HJ, Heusner T, et al. Correlation of biexponential diffusion parameters with arterial spin-labeling perfusion MRI: results in transplanted kidneys. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:140-144.
47. Heusch P, Wittsack HJ, Blondin D, et al. Functional evaluation of transplanted kidneys using arterial spin labeling MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013.
48. Lanzman RS, Robson PM, Sun MR, et al. Arterial spin-labeling MR imaging of renal masses: correlation with histopathologic findings. Radiology. 2012;265:799-808.
49. Teh HS, Ang ES, Wong WC, et al. MR renography using a dynamic gradientecho sequence and low-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine as an alternative to radionuclide renography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:441-450.
50. Vivier PH, Storey P, Rusinek H, et al. Kidney function: glomerular filtration rate measurement with MR renography in patients with cirrhosis. Radiology. 2011;259:462-470.
51. Goh V, Halligan S, Gharpuray A, et al. Quantitative assessment of colorectal cancer tumor vascular parameters by using perfusion CT: influence of tumor region of interest. Radiology. 2008;247:726-732.