Premium
Model‐free parameters from dynamic contrast‐enhanced‐MRI: Sensitivity to EES volume fraction and bolus timing
Author(s) -
Jesberger John A.,
Rafie Niusha,
Duerk Jeffrey L.,
Sunshine Jeffrey L.,
Mendez Matthew,
Remick Scot C.,
Lewin Jonathan S.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.20670
Subject(s) - bolus (digestion) , sensitivity (control systems) , nuclear medicine , dynamic contrast , biomedical engineering , linearity , mathematics , materials science , medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , physics , radiology , surgery , quantum mechanics , electronic engineering , engineering
Purpose To quantify the unknown relative sensitivities of semiquantitative measures from dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) MRI to variations in the volume fraction V e of the extravascular extracellular space (EES), and the duration of the contrast injection. Materials and Methods Tissue‐uptake curves were simulated across various values of F, PS, V e , and bolus timings, with and without additive noise and at different image reacquisition rates. From each, the peak of the first derivative (G peak ), the total uptake after the rapid first phase (CE), and the IAUC were calculated and plotted against F for each experimental condition. Relationships between each measure and the corresponding quantitative measure K trans were also examined, particularly for linearity. Results The highest sensitivity to flow was achieved for shorter bolus timings for G peak , CE, and IAUC. G peak and IAUC were most linearly related to K trans . The sensitivity to V e was lowest for G peak , followed by IAUC and CE. Long sampling intervals resulted in severe underestimation of G peak , while IAUC was unaffected provided that the limits of integration were properly applied. G peak could not be properly calculated in the presence of noise without a prior smoothing of the acquired curves, while IAUC was again unaffected by noise. Conclusion G peak and IAUC are both useful model‐free analogs of blood flow (i.e., K trans ) for pre‐ and posttreatment comparisons. G peak may be the better choice in cases where larger changes in V e are likely, but only if sufficient noise reduction and fast image sampling are applied. If V e is expected to remain stable, IAUC is superior to G peak by virtue of its stability in the face of noise and more reliable estimation over a wider range of sampling rates. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.