A Multi-Institutional Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameter Calculations

Rachel B. Ger, Abdallah S.R. Mohamed, Musaddiq J. Awan, Yao Ding, Kimberly Li, Xenia J. Fave, Andrew L. Beers, Brandon Driscoll, Hesham Elhalawani, David A. Hormuth, Petra J.Van Houdt, Renjie He, Shouhao Zhou, Kelsey B. Mathieu, Heng Li, Catherine Coolens, Caroline Chung, James A. Bankson, Wei Huang, Jihong WangVlad C. Sandulache, Stephen Y. Lai, Rebecca M. Howell, R. Jason Stafford, Thomas E. Yankeelov, Uulke A.Van Der Heide, Steven J. Frank, Daniel P. Barboriak, John D. Hazle, Laurence E. Court, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, Clifton D. Fuller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) provides quantitative metrics (e.g. Ktrans, ve) via pharmacokinetic models. We tested inter-algorithm variability in these quantitative metrics with 11 published DCE-MRI algorithms, all implementing Tofts-Kermode or extended Tofts pharmacokinetic models. Digital reference objects (DROs) with known Ktrans and ve values were used to assess performance at varying noise levels. Additionally, DCE-MRI data from 15 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients over 3 time-points during chemoradiotherapy were used to ascertain Ktrans and ve kinetic trends across algorithms. Algorithms performed well (less than 3% average error) when no noise was present in the DRO. With noise, 87% of Ktrans and 84% of ve algorithm-DRO combinations were generally in the correct order. Low Krippendorff's alpha values showed that algorithms could not consistently classify patients as above or below the median for a given algorithm at each time point or for differences in values between time points. A majority of the algorithms produced a significant Spearman correlation in ve of the primary gross tumor volume with time. Algorithmic differences in Ktrans and ve values over time indicate limitations in combining/comparing data from distinct DCE-MRI model implementations. Careful cross-algorithm quality-assurance must be utilized as DCE-MRI results may not be interpretable using differing software.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number11185
JournalScientific Reports
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2017

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General

Cite this

Ger, R. B., Mohamed, A. S. R., Awan, M. J., Ding, Y., Li, K., Fave, X. J., ... Fuller, C. D. (2017). A Multi-Institutional Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameter Calculations. Scientific Reports, 7(1), [11185]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11554-w