Tracer Kinetic Model Selection for Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Imaging of Prostate Cancer

Objectives:To investigate the conditions under which the Tofts, extended Tofts, and adiabatic approximation to the tissue homogeneity (AATH) model are the optimal tracer kinetic models (TKMs) for the quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) computed tomography (CT) examinations in prostate cancer. Materials and Methods:This prospective study was approved by the local research ethics committee, and all patients gave written informed consent. A total of 29 patients (mean age, 69.1 years; range, 56–80 years) with biopsy-proven prostate cancer underwent a DCE-CT examination prior to radiation therapy. TKM parameter maps were calculated for each patient with the Tofts, extended Tofts, and AATH models. For each voxel, corrected Akaike information criterion values were calculated, taking into account both the goodness-of-fit and the number of model parameters. We consider the optimal model as the model with the lowest corrected Akaike information criterion. Results:All 3 TKMs are the optimal models in part of the prostate. For individual patients, the AATH model was the optimal model in 25.0% to 88.9%, the Tofts in 2.7% to 71.8%, and the extended Tofts model in 0.7% to 68.7% of the prostate voxels. The Tofts model was optimal in low flow regions (<0.1 min−1), the extended Tofts model in regions with high flow (>0.4 min−1) and low transit time (<12 seconds), and the AATH model in the intermediate flow range (0.1–0.4 min−1). However, differences between the 3 models were small and TKM parameter estimates gave consistent results between the 3 models. Conclusions:All the 3 models gave reasonable fits of DCE-CT data from the prostate. In view of the small parameter range in which the Tofts and extended Tofts models outperform the AATH model, the latter seems the optimal model for quantification of DCE-CT data of the prostate.

[1]  David A Jaffray,et al.  Automatic localization of the prostate for on-line or off-line image-guided radiotherapy. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  elastix: A Toolbox for Intensity-Based Medical Image Registration , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[3]  D. Drost,et al.  Simultaneous MRI measurement of blood flow, blood volume, and capillary permeability in mammary tumors using two different contrast agents , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  Kenya Murase,et al.  Efficient method for calculating kinetic parameters using T1‐weighted dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[5]  Hai-Ling Margaret Cheng,et al.  Investigation and optimization of parameter accuracy in dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[6]  M. Knopp,et al.  Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast‐enhanced t1‐weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: Standardized quantities and symbols , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  G. Parker,et al.  Prostate cancer: evaluation of vascular characteristics with dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging--initial experience. , 2004, Radiology.

[8]  Silvia D. Chang,et al.  Combined diffusion‐weighted and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis—Correlation with biopsy and histopathology , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  Masoom A Haider,et al.  Functional CT imaging of prostate cancer. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  K. Schmainda,et al.  Water exchange and inflow affect the accuracy of T1‐GRE blood volume measurements: Implications for the evaluation of tumor angiogenesis , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[11]  Ting-Yim Lee,et al.  An Adiabatic Approximation to the Tissue Homogeneity Model for Water Exchange in the Brain: I. Theoretical Derivation , 1998, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[12]  Steven P Sourbron,et al.  On the scope and interpretation of the Tofts models for DCE‐MRI , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[13]  S. Sourbron,et al.  A comparison of tracer kinetic models for T1‐weighted dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI: Application in carcinoma of the cervix , 2010, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[14]  H. Huisman,et al.  Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[15]  R M Weisskoff,et al.  Water diffusion and exchange as they influence contrast enhancement , 1997, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[16]  Geoff J M Parker,et al.  The effect of blood inflow and B1‐field inhomogeneity on measurement of the arterial input function in axial 3D spoiled gradient echo dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[17]  Marco van Vulpen,et al.  Phase‐based arterial input function measurements in the femoral arteries for quantification of dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) MRI and comparison with DCE‐CT , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[18]  C. Parker,et al.  The relevance of a hypoxic tumour microenvironment in prostate cancer , 2010, BJU international.

[19]  Chris J G Bakker,et al.  Feasibility and measurement precision of 3D quantitative blood flow mapping of the prostate using dynamic contrast-enhanced multi-slice CT , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Information and Likelihood Theory: A Basis for Model Selection and Inference , 2004 .

[21]  A. Jackson,et al.  Modeling of contrast agent kinetics in the lung using T1‐weighted dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[22]  Mark Rijpkema,et al.  Combined quantitative dynamic contrast‐enhanced MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopic imaging of human prostate cancer , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[23]  Mikael Karlsson,et al.  A Novel Estimation Method for Physiological Parameters in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Application of a Distributed Parameter Model Using Fourier-Domain Calculations , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[24]  L. Bains,et al.  Tracer kinetic analysis of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI and CT bladder cancer data: A preliminary comparison to assess the magnitude of water exchange effects , 2010, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[25]  David L Buckley,et al.  Uncertainty in the analysis of tracer kinetics using dynamic contrast‐enhanced T1‐weighted MRI , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[26]  D. Buckley,et al.  Precision in measurements of perfusion and microvascular permeability with T1‐weighted dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2006, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[27]  Piotr Kozlowski,et al.  Combined prostate diffusion tensor imaging and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI at 3T--quantitative correlation with biopsy. , 2010, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[28]  Lucy E Kershaw,et al.  Temporal resolution and SNR requirements for accurate DCE‐MRI data analysis using the AATH model , 2010, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[29]  Jian L. Zhou,et al.  User's Guide for CFSQP Version 2.0: A C Code for Solving (Large Scale) Constrained Nonlinear (Minimax) Optimization Problems, Generating Iterates Satisfying All Inequality Constraints , 1994 .

[30]  An Adiabatic Approximation to the Tissue Homogeneity Model for Water Exchange in the Brain : I . Theoretical Derivation , .

[31]  Maaike R Moman,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT for prostate cancer: relationship between image noise, voxel size, and repeatability. , 2010, Radiology.

[32]  G. Brix,et al.  Pharmacokinetic analysis of tissue microcirculation using nested models: multimodel inference and parameter identifiability. , 2009, Medical physics.