Blind deconvolution in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and ultrasound

This paper is focused on quantitative perfusion analysis using MRI and ultrasound. In both MRI and ultrasound, most approaches allow estimation of rate constants (Ktrans, kep for MRI) and indices (AUC, TTP) that are only related to the physiological perfusion parameters of a tissue (e.g. blood flow, vessel permeability) but do not allow their absolute quantification. Recent methods for quantification of these physiological perfusion parameters are shortly reviewed. The main problem of these methods is estimation of the arterial input function (AIF). This paper summarizes and extends the current blind-deconvolution approaches to AIF estimation. The feasibility of these methods is shown on a small preclinical study using both MRI and ultrasound.

[1]  Marleen Verhoye,et al.  Assessment of the neovascular permeability in glioma xenografts by dynamic T1 MRI with Gadomer‐17 , 2002, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

[2]  Jirik R Mezl M,et al.  BIOSIGNAL 2010 Quantitative Ultrasound Perfusion Analysis In Vitro , 2010 .

[3]  R. Kolar,et al.  Ultrasound perfusion analysis combining bolus-tracking and burst-replenishment , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[4]  Renate Grüner,et al.  Single-Channel Blind Estimation of Arterial Input Function and Tissue Impulse Response in DCE-MRI , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[5]  J. Gore,et al.  A quantitative comparison of the influence of individual versus population‐derived vascular input functions on dynamic contrast enhanced‐MRI in small animals , 2012, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[6]  D L Buckley,et al.  Tracer kinetic modelling in MRI: estimating perfusion and capillary permeability , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Edward V. R. Di Bella,et al.  Estimation of kinetic parameters without input functions: analysis of three methods for multichannel blind identification , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  M. Arditi,et al.  In-vivo perfusion quantification by contrast ultrasound: Validation of the use of linearized video data vs. raw RF data , 2008, 2008 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium.

[9]  T. Taxt,et al.  Anti-VEGF treatment reduces blood supply and increases tumor cell invasion in glioblastoma , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Joël Mispelter,et al.  Simultaneous dynamic T1 and T2* measurement for AIF assessment combined with DCE MRI in a mouse tumor model , 2007, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[11]  Edward V R Dibella,et al.  Model‐based blind estimation of kinetic parameters in dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE)‐MRI , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[12]  Ingrid Leguerney,et al.  Assessment of Quantitative Perfusion Parameters by Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced Sonography Using a Deconvolution Method , 2012, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[13]  L. Nabors,et al.  High‐resolution longitudinal assessment of flow and permeability in mouse glioma vasculature: Sequential small molecule and SPIO dynamic contrast agent MRI , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[14]  Johannes Buurman,et al.  Effects of reference tissue AIF derived from low temporal resolution DCE-MRI data on pharmacokinetic parameter estimation , 2010 .

[15]  Radovan Jirik,et al.  Parametric ultrasound perfusion analysis combining bolus tracking and replenishment , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium.