Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Dependence of DCE-MRI biomarker values on analysis algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) biomarkers have proven utility in tumors in evaluating microvascular perfusion and permeability, but it is unclear whether measurements made in different centers are comparable due to methodological differences.

PURPOSE: To evaluate how commonly utilized analytical methods for DCE-MRI biomarkers affect both the absolute parameter values and repeatability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: DCE-MRI was performed on three consecutive days in twelve rats bearing C6 xenografts. Endothelial transfer constant (Ktrans), extracellular extravascular space volume fraction (ve), and contrast agent reflux rate constant (kep) measures were computed using: 2-parameter ("Tofts" or "standard Kety") vs. 3-parameter ("General Kinetic" or "extended Kety") compartmental models (including blood plasma volume fraction (vp) with 3-parameter models); individual- vs. population-based vascular input functions (VIFs); and pixel-by-pixel vs. whole tumor-ROI. Variability was evaluated by within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) and variance components analyses.

RESULTS: DCE-MRI absolute parameter values and wCVs varied widely by analytical method. Absolute parameter values ranged, as follows, median Ktrans, 0.09-0.18 min-1; kep, 0.51-0.92 min-1; ve, 0.17-0.23; and vp, 0.02-0.04. wCVs also varied widely by analytical method, as follows: mean Ktrans, 32.9-61.9%; kep, 11.6-41.9%; ve, 16.1-54.9%; and vp, 53.9-77.2%. Ktrans and kep values were lower with 3- than 2-parameter modeling (p<0.0001); kep and vp were lower with pixel- than whole-ROI analyses (p<0.0006). wCVs were significantly smaller for ve, and larger for kep, with individual- than population-based VIFs.

CONCLUSIONS: DCE-MRI parameter values and repeatability can vary widely by analytical methodology. Absolute values of DCE-MRI biomarkers are unlikely to be comparable between different studies unless analyses are carefully standardized.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app