Optimization of DCE-MRI protocol for the assessment of patients with brain tumors.

The interstitium-to-plasma rate constant (kep), extracted from dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE-MRI) MRI data, seems to have an important role in the assessment of patients with brain tumors. This parameter is affected by the slow behavior of the system, and thus is expected to be highly dependent on acquisition duration. The aim of this study was to optimize the scan duration and protocol of DCE-MRI for accurate estimation of the kep parameter in patients with high grade brain tumors. The effects of DCE-MRI scan duration and protocol design (continuous vs integrated scanning) on the estimated pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and on model selection, were studied using both simulated and patient data. Scan duration varied, up to 60min for simulated data, and up to 25min in 25 MRI scans obtained from patients with high grade brain tumors, with continuous and integrated scanning protocols. Converging results were obtained from simulated and real data. Significant effect of scan duration was detected on kep. Scan duration of 9min, with integrated protocol in which the data are acquired continuously for 5min, and additional volumes at 7 and 9min, was sufficient for accurate estimation of even low kep values, with an average error of 3%. Over-estimation of the PK parameters was detected for scan duration <12min, being more pronounced at low kep values (<0.1min-1). For the model selection maps, significantly lower percentage of the full extended-Tofts-model (ETM) was selected in patients at scan duration of 5min compared to >12min. An integrated protocol of 9min is suggested as optimal for clinical use in patients with high grade brain tumors. Lower acquisition time may result in over-estimation of kep when using ETM, and therefore care should be taken using model selection.

[1]  Joanna M. Wardlaw,et al.  Assessment of blood–brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. A systematic review , 2014, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[2]  Natal A W van Riel,et al.  On the identifiability of pharmacokinetic parameters in dynamic contrast‐enhanced imaging , 2007, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[3]  Rakesh K. Gupta,et al.  Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Derived kep as a Potential Biomarker of Matrix Metalloproteinase 9 Expression in Patients With Glioblastoma Multiforme: A Pilot Study , 2012, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[4]  T. Peters,et al.  High‐resolution T1 and T2 mapping of the brain in a clinically acceptable time with DESPOT1 and DESPOT2 , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[5]  H. Larsson,et al.  Accurate Determination of Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced T1-Weighted MRI: A Simulation and in vivo Study on Healthy Subjects and Multiple Sclerosis Patients , 2014, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[6]  G. Liberman,et al.  Differentiation between treatment-related changes and progressive disease in patients with high grade brain tumors using support vector machine classification based on DCE MRI , 2016, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.

[7]  Rajan Jain,et al.  Measurements of tumor vascular leakiness using DCE in brain tumors: clinical applications , 2013, NMR in biomedicine.

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

[9]  T W Redpath,et al.  The accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurement in DCE-MRI of the breast at 3 T , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  A. Jackson,et al.  Experimentally‐derived functional form for a population‐averaged high‐temporal‐resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2006, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[11]  Maximilian Reiser,et al.  Quantification of cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, and blood–brain‐barrier leakage with DCE‐MRI , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[12]  Lin Li,et al.  Parameters of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI as Imaging Markers for Angiogenesis and Proliferation in Human Breast Cancer , 2015, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[13]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL , 2004, NeuroImage.

[14]  P. Tofts,et al.  Measurement of the blood‐brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts , 1991, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[15]  Walter H Backes,et al.  The precision of pharmacokinetic parameters in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: the effect of sampling frequency and duration , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Stephen L. Brown,et al.  Model Selection in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurements of Vascular Permeability: Gadomer in a 9L Model of Rat Cerebral Tumor , 2006, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

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

[18]  Dafna Ben Bashat,et al.  T1 Mapping using variable flip angle SPGR data with flip angle correction , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  A. Bjørnerud,et al.  Sampling requirements in DCE‐MRI based analysis of high grade gliomas: Simulations and clinical results , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[20]  D Balvay,et al.  Perfusion and vascular permeability: basic concepts and measurement in DCE-CT and DCE-MRI. , 2013, Diagnostic and interventional imaging.

[21]  Sanjay Behari,et al.  Subcompartmentalization of extracellular extravascular space (EES) into permeability and leaky space with local arterial input function (AIF) results in improved discrimination between high‐ and low‐grade glioma using dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) MRI , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[22]  Jonathan R. Young,et al.  Advances in MRI Assessment of Gliomas and Response to Anti-VEGF Therapy , 2011, Current neurology and neuroscience reports.

[23]  Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh,et al.  Model selection for DCE‐T1 studies in glioblastoma , 2012, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[24]  J. Ewing,et al.  DUSTER: dynamic contrast enhance up-sampled temporal resolution analysis method. , 2016, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[25]  Steven P Sourbron,et al.  Classic models for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2013, NMR in biomedicine.

[26]  Robert Luypaert,et al.  Validity of perfusion parameters obtained using the modified Tofts model: A simulation study , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[27]  Myung Ah Lee,et al.  Correlation of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI perfusion parameters with angiogenesis and biologic aggressiveness of rectal cancer: Preliminary results , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.