Comparison between PUN and Tofts models in the quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging

被引:13
作者
Mazzetti, S. [1 ]
Gliozzi, A. S. [2 ]
Bracco, C. [1 ]
Russo, F. [1 ]
Regge, D. [1 ]
Stasi, M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Canc Res & Treatment, I-10060 Turin, Italy
[2] Politecn Torino, Inst Phys Condensed Matter & Complex Syst, Dept Appl Sci & Technol, I-10129 Turin, Italy
关键词
COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS; PHARMACOKINETIC PARAMETERS; PROSTATE-CANCER; DCE-MRI; GROWTH; GADOPENTETATE; FREQUENCY; TRACER; TISSUE; TUMORS;
D O I
10.1088/0031-9155/57/24/8443
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Dynamic contrast-enhanced study in magnetic resonance imaging (DC-EMRI) is an important tool in oncology to visualize tissues vascularization and to define tumour aggressiveness on the basis of an altered perfusion and permeability. Pharmacokinetic models are generally used to extract hemodynamic parameters, providing a quantitative description of the contrast uptake and wash-out. Empirical functions can also be used to fit experimental data without the need of any assumption about tumour physiology, as in pharmacokinetic models, increasing their diagnostic utility, in particular when automatic diagnosis systems are implemented on the basis of an MRI multiparametric approach. Phenomenological universalities (PUN) represent a novel tool for experimental research and offer a simple and systematic method to represent a set of data independent of the application field. DCE-MRI acquisitions can thus be advantageously evaluated by the extended PUN class, providing a convenient diagnostic tool to analyse functional studies, adding a new set of features for the classification of malignant and benign lesions in computer aided detection systems. In this work the Tofts pharmacokinetic model and the class EU1 generated by the PUN description were compared in the study of DCE-MRI of the prostate, evaluating complexity of model implementation, goodness of fitting results, classification performances and computational cost. The mean R-2 obtained with the EU1 and Tofts model were equal to 0.96 and 0.90, respectively, and the classification performances achieved by the EU1 model and the Tofts implementation discriminated malignant from benign tissues with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve equal to 0.92 and 0.91, respectively. Furthermore, the EU1 model has a simpler functional form which reduces implementation complexity and computational time, requiring 6 min to complete a patient elaboration process, instead of 8 min needed for the Tofts model analysis.
引用
收藏
页码:8443 / 8453
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A direct comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and prediction of aggressiveness
    Baur, Alexander D. J.
    Schwabe, Julia
    Rogasch, Julian
    Maxeiner, Andreas
    Penzkofer, Tobias
    Stephan, Carsten
    Rudl, Marc
    Hamm, Bernd
    Jung, Ernst-Michael
    Fischer, Thom
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (05) : 1949 - 1960
  • [42] COMPARISON BETWEEN PERFUSION COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY AND DYNAMIC CONTRAST-ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN RECTAL CANCER
    Kierkels, Roel G. J.
    Backes, Walter H.
    Janssen, Marco H. M.
    Buijsen, Jeroen
    Beets-Tan, Regina G. H.
    Lambin, Philippe
    Lammerng, Guido
    Oellers, Michel C.
    Aerts, Hugo J. W. L.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 77 (02): : 400 - 408
  • [43] Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of ocular melanoma
    Jiang, Xuyuan
    Asbach, Patrick
    Willerding, Gregor
    Dulce, Miriam
    Xu, Ke
    Taupitz, Matthias
    Hamm, Bernd
    Erb-Eigner, Katharina
    MELANOMA RESEARCH, 2015, 25 (02) : 149 - 156
  • [44] Effect of Radiofrequency Transmit Field Correction on Quantitative Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of the Breast at 3.0 T
    Bedair, Reem
    Graves, Martin J.
    Patterson, Andrew J.
    McLean, Mary A.
    Manavaki, Roido
    Wallace, Tess
    Reid, Scott
    Mendichovszky, Iosif
    Griffiths, John
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    RADIOLOGY, 2016, 279 (02) : 368 - 377
  • [45] Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MR Imaging in the Head and Neck: Correlation with Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR Imaging and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging
    Xu, Xiao Quan
    Choi, Young Jun
    Sung, Yu Sub
    Yoon, Ra Gyoung
    Jang, Seung Won
    Park, Ji Eun
    Heo, Young Jin
    Baek, Jung Hwan
    Lee, Jeong Hyun
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 17 (05) : 641 - 649
  • [46] Impact of contrast agent injection duration on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI quantification in prostate cancer
    Klawer, Edzo M. E.
    van Houdt, Petra J.
    Pos, Floris J.
    Heijmink, Stijn W. T. P. J.
    van Osch, Matthias J. P.
    van der Heide, Uulke A.
    NMR IN BIOMEDICINE, 2018, 31 (09)
  • [47] Evaluation of pharmacokinetic models for perfusion imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in porcine skeletal muscle using low-molecular-weight contrast agents
    Hindel, Stefan
    Papanastasiou, Giorgos
    Wust, Peter
    Maass, Marc
    Soehner, Anika
    Luedemann, Lutz
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2018, 79 (06) : 3154 - 3162
  • [48] Early evaluation of irradiated parotid glands with intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging: correlation with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging
    Zhou, Nan
    Chu, Chen
    Dou, Xin
    Li, Ming
    Liu, Song
    Zhu, Lijing
    Liu, Baorui
    Guo, Tingting
    Chen, Weibo
    He, Jian
    Yan, Jing
    Zhou, Zhengyang
    Yang, Xiaofeng
    Liu, Tian
    BMC CANCER, 2016, 16
  • [49] Differentiation of Hemangioblastoma from Metastatic Brain Tumor using Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging
    Cha, J.
    Kim, S. T.
    Nam, D. -H.
    Kong, D-S.
    Kim, H. -J.
    Kim, Y. K.
    Kim, H. Y.
    Park, G. M.
    Jeon, P.
    Kim, K. H.
    Byun, H. S.
    CLINICAL NEURORADIOLOGY, 2017, 27 (03) : 329 - 334
  • [50] Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating benign, borderline, and malignant ovarian tumors
    Li, Hai-ming
    Feng, Feng
    Qiang, Jin-wei
    Zhang, Guo-fu
    Zhao, Shu-hui
    Ma, Feng-hua
    Li, Yong-ai
    Gu, Wei-yong
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (11) : 3132 - 3141