Average arterial input function for quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of neck nodal metastases.
Average arterial input function for quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of neck nodal metastases.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1756-6649-9-4
复制
发表时间：
2009-04-07
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Koutcher, Jason A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shukla-Dave, Amita;Lee, Nancy;Koutcher, Jason A
背景技术背景：本研究确定了从有限的颈淋巴结转移患者人群中生成平均动脉输入函数（Avg-AIF）的可行性，该平均动脉输入函数将用于较大人群临床试验中动态对比增强MRI（DCE-MRI）数据的药代动力学建模。二十名患者（平均年龄50岁[范围27-77岁]），颈淋巴结转移，接受了预处理DCE-在1.5T临床MRI扫描仪上进行时间分辨率为3.75至7.5秒的MRI研究。11个单独的AIF（Ind-AIF）符合预期增强模式的标准，并用于生成平均AIF。采用Tofts模型计算DCE-MRI药代动力学参数。采用Bland-Altman图和配对t检验描述个体AIF和平均AIF获得的药代动力学参数之间的显著差异。与Avg-AIF相比，使用Ind-AIF测量的转移常数（Ktranss）未观察到总体显著差异（偏倚）（感兴趣区域（ROI）分析p = 0.20，直方图中位数分析p = 0.18）。同样，与Avg-AIF相比，使用Ind-AIF测量的间质液空间体积分数（ve）未观察到总体显著差异（ROI分析p = 0.48，直方图中位数分析p = 0.93）。然而，Bland-Altman图表明，随着Ktranss的增加，Ind-AIF估计往往会成比例地高于Avg-AIF estimate.CONCLUSION：我们发现，与Ind-AIFs.However相比，从有限的人群中生成的Avg-AIF，在Ktranss或ve估计中没有统计学显著的总体偏倚，需要进一步研究来确定是否需要在Ktranss的范围内进行校准。从有限人群中获得的Avg-AIF可用于颈淋巴结转移较大人群研究中DCE-MRI数据的药代动力学建模。需要在更多人群和多个地区进一步验证平均值-AIF方法。
BACKGROUND: The present study determines the feasibility of generating an average arterial input function (Avg-AIF) from a limited population of patients with neck nodal metastases to be used for pharmacokinetic modeling of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) data in clinical trials of larger populations.METHODS: Twenty patients (mean age 50 years [range 27-77 years]) with neck nodal metastases underwent pretreatment DCE-MRI studies with a temporal resolution of 3.75 to 7.5 sec on a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner. Eleven individual AIFs (Ind-AIFs) met the criteria of expected enhancement pattern and were used to generate Avg-AIF. Tofts model was used to calculate pharmacokinetic DCE-MRI parameters. Bland-Altman plots and paired Student t-tests were used to describe significant differences between the pharmacokinetic parameters obtained from individual and average AIFs.RESULTS: Ind-AIFs obtained from eleven patients were used to calculate the Avg-AIF. No overall significant difference (bias) was observed for the transfer constant (Ktrans) measured with Ind-AIFs compared to Avg-AIF (p = 0.20 for region-of-interest (ROI) analysis and p = 0.18 for histogram median analysis). Similarly, no overall significant difference was observed for interstitial fluid space volume fraction (ve) measured with Ind-AIFs compared to Avg-AIF (p = 0.48 for ROI analysis and p = 0.93 for histogram median analysis). However, the Bland-Altman plot suggests that as Ktrans increases, the Ind-AIF estimates tend to become proportionally higher than the Avg-AIF estimates.CONCLUSION: We found no statistically significant overall bias in Ktrans or ve estimates derived from Avg-AIF, generated from a limited population, as compared with Ind-AIFs.However, further study is needed to determine whether calibration is needed across the range of Ktrans. The Avg-AIF obtained from a limited population may be used for pharmacokinetic modeling of DCE-MRI data in larger population studies with neck nodal metastases. Further validation of the Avg-AIF approach with a larger population and in multiple regions is desirable.