Developing a tool for the validation of quantitative DCE-MRI

Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) is becoming an indispensable tool to non-invasively study tumor characteristics. However, many different DCE-analysis methods are currently being used. To compare and validate different methods, histology is the gold standard. For this purpose, exact co-localization between histology and MRI images is a prerequisite. In this study a methodology is developed to validate DCE-data with histology with an emphasis on correct registration of DCE-MRI and histological data. A pancreatic tumor was grown in a rat model. The tumor was dissected after MR imaging, embedded in paraffin, and cut into thin slices. These slices were stained with haematoxylin and eosin, digitized and stacked in a 3D volume. Next, the 3D histology was registered to ex-vivo SWI-weighted MR images, which in turn were registered to in-vivo SWI and DCE images to achieve correct co-localization. Semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters were calculated. Preliminary results suggest that both pharmacokinetic and heuristic DCE-parameters can discriminate between vital and non-vital tumor regions. The developed method offers the basis for an accurate spatial correlation between DCE-MRI derived parametric maps and histology, and facilitates the evaluation of different DCE-MRI analysis methods.

[1]  Stefan Klein,et al.  Multi-modal image registration: matching MRI with histology , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[2]  Kristine Gulliksrud,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of tumor interstitial fluid pressure. , 2009, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

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

[4]  Thomas E Yankeelov,et al.  Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Oncology: Theory, Data Acquisition, Analysis, and Examples. , 2007, Current medical imaging reviews.

[5]  M V Knopp,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. , 2001, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[6]  L R Schad,et al.  Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. , 1991, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[7]  Kristine Gulliksrud,et al.  Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Tumors: Preclinical Validation of Parametric Images , 2009, Radiation research.

[8]  D J Collins,et al.  Dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is a poor measure of rectal cancer angiogenesis , 2006, The British journal of surgery.

[9]  E. Rofstad,et al.  Tumor vascularity assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and intravital microscopy imaging. , 2008, Neoplasia.

[10]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer localization. , 2009, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  Michael Brady,et al.  Analysis of dynamic MR breast images using a model of contrast enhancement , 1997, Medical Image Anal..

[12]  B. Rutt,et al.  Rapid combined T1 and T2 mapping using gradient recalled acquisition in the steady state , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[13]  E. Rofstad,et al.  Assessment of Fraction of Hypoxic Cells in Human Tumor Xenografts with Necrotic Regions by Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI , 2008, Radiation research.

[14]  Christian Ludwig,et al.  Rat tumor response to the vascular-disrupting agent 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid as measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, plasma 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid levels, and tumor necrosis. , 2006, Neoplasia.