Monitoring of lung motion in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma using two-dimensional and three-dimensional dynamic magnetic resonance imaging - Comparison with spirometry
Monitoring of lung motion in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma using two-dimensional and three-dimensional dynamic magnetic resonance imaging - Comparison with spirometry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/01.rli.0000208222.03256.ba
复制
发表时间：
2006-05-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Kauczor, HU
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Plathow, C;Klopp, M;Kauczor, HU
目的：使用二维 (2D) 和三维 (3D) 动态 MRI (dMRI) 与肺活量测定法相比，监测恶性胸膜间皮瘤 (MPM) 患者化疗 (CHT) 前后的肺运动。方法和材料：22 名 MPM 患者在 CHT 前以及 3 和 6 个 CHT 周期（3 个月和 6 个月）后使用 2D dMRI (trueFISP; 3) 进行检查。图像/秒）和 3D dMRI（FLASH 3D，I 板（52 切片）/秒）使用并行成像与视图共享技术相结合。监测最大颅尾肺尺寸（2D）和肺体积（3D），并将其分为带肿瘤和不带肿瘤的半胸。采用肺活量测定法测量肺活量（VC）进行比较。结果：采用2D技术，CHT前（P < 0.01）和3个CHT周期后（P < 0.05）荷瘤侧和非荷瘤侧胸有显着性差异，而第二个对照中差异不显着。在荷瘤半胸中，与 3 个 CHT 周期后相比，活动度显着增加（4.1 +/- 1.1 cm 与 4.8 +/- 1.4 cm，P < 0.05）。使用 3D 技术，在最大吸气时，CHT 前，荷瘤半胸的体积为 0.6 +/- 0.4 L，非荷瘤半胸的体积为 1.25 +/- 0.4 L。在后续检查中，这些体积分别更改为 1.05 +/- 0.4 L (P < 0.05) 和 1.4 +/- 0.5 L。使用肺活量测定法，VC 没有显着变化（1.9 +/- 0.4 L vs. 2.2 +/- 0.7 L vs. 2.2 +/- 0.9 L）。 结论：dMRI 能够监测全身肺量测定未检测到的 MPM 患者的肺、运动和容量变化。因此，建议将 dMRI 用作治疗反应的进一步测量。
Purpose: To monitor lung motion in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) before and after chemotherapy (CHT) using 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) dynamic MRI (dMRI) in comparison with spirometry.Methods and Materials: Twenty-two patients with MPM were examined before CHT, as well as after 3 and 6 CHT cycles (3 months and 6 months) using 2D dMRI (trueFISP; 3 images/s) and 3D dMRI (FLASH 3D, I slab (52 slices)/s) using parallel imaging in combination with view-sharing technique. Maximum craniocaudal lung dimensions (2D) and lung volumes (3D) were monitored, separated into the tumor-bearing and nontumor-bearing hemithorax. Vital capacity (VC) was measured for comparison using spirometry.Results: Using 2D technique, there was a significant difference between the tumor-bearing and the nontumor-bearing hemithorax before CHT (P < 0.01) and after 3 CHT cycles (P < 0.05), whereas difference was not significant in the second control. In the tumor-bearing hemithorax, mobility increased significantly from the status before versus after 3 CHT cycles (4.1 +/- 1.1 cm vs. 4.8 +/- 1.4 cm, P < 0.05). Using 3D technique, at maximum inspiration, the volume of the tumor-bearing hemithorax was 0.6 +/- 0.4 L and of the nontumor-bearing hemithorax 1.25 +/- 0.4 L before CHT. In the follow-up exams, these volumes changed to 1.05 +/- 0.4 L (P < 0.05) and 1.4 +/- 0.5 L, respectively. Using spirometry, there was no significant change in VC (1.9 +/- 0.4 L vs. 2.2 +/- 0.7 L vs. 2.2 +/- 0.9 L).Conclusion: dMRI is capable of monitoring changes in lung, motion and volumetry in patients with MPM not detected by global spirornetry. Thus, dMRI is proposed for use as a further measure of therapy response.