Deconvolution of bolus-tracking data: a comparison of discretization methods

被引:33
作者
Sourbron, S.
Luypaert, R.
Morhard, D.
Seelos, K.
Reiser, M.
Peller, M.
机构
[1] Univ Munich, Inst Clin Radiol, D-81377 Munich, Germany
[2] Vrije Univ Brussel, Dept Radiol, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
[3] Univ Munich, Dept Neuroradiol, D-81377 Munich, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.1088/0031-9155/52/22/014
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Model-free measurement of perfusion from bolus-tracking data requires a discretization of the tracer kinetic model. In this study a classification is provided of existing approaches to discretization, and the accuracy of these methods is compared. Two methods are included which are delay invariant (circulant and time shift) and three methods which are not (volterra, singular and hybrid). Simulations of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the brain are performed for two tissue types (plug flow and compartment) with variable delay and dispersion times, temporal resolution and signal to noise. Simulations were compared to measurements in a patient data set. Both delay-invariant methods are equally accurate, but the circulant method is sensitive to data truncation. Overall volterra produces highest estimates of perfusion, followed by hybrid, singular and delay-invariant methods. Volterra is most accurate except in plug-flow without delay or dispersion, which represents an unrealistic tissue type. Differences between methods vanish when delay or dispersion times increase above the temporal resolution. It is concluded that when negative delays cannot be avoided or when an accurate estimate of left-right perfusion ratios is required, the time shift is the method of choice. When delays are certain to be positive and absolute accuracy is the objective, the volterra method is to be preferred.
引用
收藏
页码:6761 / 6778
页数:18
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   Quantification of bolus-tracking MRI: Improved characterization of the tissue residue function using Tikhonov regularization [J].
Calamante, F ;
Gadian, DG ;
Connelly, A .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2003, 50 (06) :1237-1247
[2]  
Calamante F, 2000, MAGN RESON MED, V44, P466, DOI 10.1002/1522-2594(200009)44:3<466::AID-MRM18>3.0.CO
[3]  
2-M
[4]   Dynamic magnetic resonance perfusion imaging of brain tumors [J].
Covarrubias, DJ ;
Rosen, BR ;
Lev, MH .
ONCOLOGIST, 2004, 9 (05) :528-537
[5]   Quantification of renal perfusion and function on a voxel-by-voxel basis: A feasibility study [J].
Dujardin, M ;
Sourbron, S ;
Luypaert, R ;
Verbeelen, D ;
Stadnik, T .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2005, 54 (04) :841-849
[6]  
Hansen P. C., 1998, Rank-Deficient and Discrete Ill-Posed Problems
[7]   Deconvolution and regularization with Toeplitz matrices [J].
Hansen, PC .
NUMERICAL ALGORITHMS, 2002, 29 (04) :323-378
[8]   Theoretical model of intravascular paramagnetic tracers effect on tissue relaxation [J].
Kjolby, B. F. ;
Ostergaard, L. ;
Kiselev, V. G. .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2006, 56 (01) :187-197
[9]   Reexamining the quantification of perfusion MRI data in the presence of bolus dispersion [J].
Ko, Linda ;
Salluzzi, Marina ;
Frayne, Richard ;
Smith, Michael .
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2007, 25 (03) :639-643
[10]  
Lassen N. A., 1979, TRACER KINETIC METHO, DOI [10.1118/1.594896, DOI 10.1118/1.594896]