Imaging microvascular structure with constrast enhanced MRI

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 76, Issue SPEC. ISS. 2, 2003, Pages

  Jackson, A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ANGIOGENESIS; ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MICROVASCULARIZATION; NEOVASCULARIZATION (PATHOLOGY); NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY;

CONTRAST MEDIA; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MICROCIRCULATION; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEOPLASMS; NEOVASCULARIZATION, PATHOLOGIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 8844227392     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/22322389     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol 2001;56:607-20.
2. Morgan B, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for the pharmacological response of PTK787/ZK 222584, an inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and liver metastases: results from two phase I studies. J Clin Oncol 2003;21: 3955-64.
3. Dzik-Jurasz A. The development and application of functional nuclear magnetic resonance to in vivo therapeutic anticancer research: 2002 Sir Godfrey Hounstield lecture delivered at the President's Day, Manchester. Br J Radiol 2004;77:296-307.
4. Jayson GC, et al. Molecular imaging and biological evaluation of HuMV833 anti-VEGF antibody: implications for trial design of antiangiogenic antibodies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1484-93.
5. Folkman J. What is the evidence that tumours are angiogenesis dependent? J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:4-6.
6. Machein MR, Plate KH. Role of VEGF in developmental angiogenesis and in tumor angiogenesis in the brain. Cancer Treat Res 2004;117:191-218.
7. Manley PW, et al. Advances in the structural biology, design and clinical development of VEGF-R kinase inhibitors for the treatment of angiogenesis. Biochim Biophys Acta 2004;1697: 17-27.
8. Harry LE, Paleolog EM. From the cradle to the clinic: VEGF in developmental, physiological, and pathological angiogenesis. Birth Defects Res Part C Embryo Today 2003; 69:363-74.
9. Shibuya M. VEGF-receptor inhibitors for anti-angiogenesis. Nippon Yakurigaku Zasshi 2003;122:498-503.
10. Shweiki D, et al. Induction of vascular endothelial growth factor expression by hypoxia and by glucose deficiency in multicell spheroids: implications for tumor angiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995;92:768-72.
11. Lund EL, et al. Tumor angiogenesis - a new therapeutic target in gliomas, Acta Neurol Scand 1998;97:52-62.
12. Zhu XP, et al. Quantification of endothelial permeability, leakage space, and blood volume in brain tumors using combined T1 and T2* contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;11:575-85.
13. Tofts PS, Kermode AG. Measurement of the blood brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging: Fundemental concepts. Magn Reson Med 1991;17:357-67.
14. Tofts PS, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)- weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223-32.
15. Kassner A, et al. Abnormalities of the contrast re-circulation phase in cerebral tumours demonstrated using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging: A possible marker of vascular tortuosity. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;11:103-13.
16. Uematsu H, et al. Vascular permeability: quantitative measurement with double-echo dynamic MR imaging - theory and clinical application. Radiology 2000;214:912-7.
17. Knopp MV, et al. Pathophysiologic, basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:260-6.
18. Cantu De Leon D, et al. Significance of microvascular density (MVD) in cervical cancer recurrence. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003;13:856-62.
19. Ozalp S, et al. Microvessel density (MVD) as a prognosticator in endometrial carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2003;24: 305-8.
20. Barbier EL, Lamalle L, Decorps M. Methodology of brain perfusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13: 496-520.
21. Rosen BR, et al. Susceptibility contrast imaging of cerebral blood volume: human experience. Magn Reson Med 1991; 22:293-9.
22. Ostergaard L, et al. Cerebral blood flow measurements by magnetic resonance imaging bolus tracking: comparison with [O15] H2O positron emission tomography in humans. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1998;18:935-40.
23. Boxerman J, et al. MR contrast due to intravascular magnetic susceptibility perturbations. Magn Reson Med 1995;34: 555-66.
24. Weisskoff R, et al. Simultaneous blood volume and permeability mapping using a single Gd-based contrast injection. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Scientific meeting of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, San Francisco, 1994:279.
25. Sorensen A, Reimer P. Cerebral MR perfusion imaging: Principles and current applications. Stuttgart: Thieme, 2000: 152.
26. Aronen HJ, et al. Echo-planar MR cerebral blood volume mapping of gliomas. Clinical utility. Acta Radiol 1995; 36:520-8.
27. Jackson A, et al. Reproducibility of T2* blood volume and vascular tortuosity maps in cerebral gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;14:510-6.
28. Zhu XP, et al. Quantification of endothelial permeability, leakage space and blood volume in brain tumors using combined T1 and T2* contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;11:575-85.
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;44:466-73.
30. Jackson A, et al. Abnormalities in the recirculation phase of contrast agent bolus passage in cerebral gliomas: comparison with relative blood volume and tumor grade. Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:7-14.
31. Zhu X, et al. 3D T1 Mapping by Means of Fast Field Echo Technique. Proceedings of the 7th scientific meeting of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Philadelphia, 1999:2143.
32. Li K, et al. Improving estimates of endothelial permeability surface area product using constrained fitting parameters for the estimation of the plasma tracer concentration function (PTCF). In Eighth scientific meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2000. Denver, Colorado.
33. Li K, et al. Improved 3D Quantitative Mapping of Blood Volume and Endothelial Permeability in Brain Tumours. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:347-57.
34. Li KL, et al. Accurate Measurement of Arterial Input Function (AIF) Using a 3D T1 Gradient Echo Imaging Method. In: Proceedings of the 7th scientific meeting of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Philadelphia, 1999:573.
35. Stack J, Redmond O, Codd M, et al. Breast disease: Tissue characterization with Gd-DTPA enhancement profiles. Radiology 1990;174:491-4.
36. Flickinger F, et al. Differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses by time-intensity evaluation of contrast enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 1993;11: 617-20.
37. Tofts PS. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:91-101.
38. Parker GJ, et al. Probing tumor microvascularity by measurement, analysis and display of contrast agent uptake kinetics. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:564-74.
39. Haroon HA, et al. A comparison of Ktrans measurements obtained with conventional and first pass pharmacokinetic models in human gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 19:527-36.
40. St Lawrence K, Lee T. An Adiabatic Approximation to the Tissue Homogeneity Model for Water Exchange in the Brain: I. Theoretical Derivation. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1998;18:1365-77.
41. Liney GP, Turnbull LW, Knowles AJ. In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy and dynamic contrast enhanced imaging of the prostate gland. NMR Biomed 1999;12: 39-44.
42. Li KL, Zhu XP, Jackson A. Parametric mapping of scaled fitting error in dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced MR perfusion imaging. Br J Radiol 2000;73: 470-81.
43. Li KL, Jackson A. New hybrid technique for accurate and reproducible quantitation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:1286-95.
44. Padhani AR, et al. Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic MRI of normal human tissues. NMR Biomed 2002;15: 143-53.
45. Jackson A, et al. Breath-hold perfusion and permeability mapping of hepatic malignancies using magnetic resonance imaging and a first-pass leakage profile model. NMR Biomed 2002;15:164-73.
46. Galbraith SM, et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in human muscle and tumours: comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis. NMR Biomed 2002;15:132-42.
47. Buckley DL. Uncertainty in the analysis of tracer kinetics using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:601-6.