DCE-MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma

perfusion quantification with Tofts model versus shutter-speed model—initial experience

Guido H. Jajamovich, Wei Huang, Cecilia Besa, Xin Li, Aneela Afzal, Hadrien A. Dyvorne, Bachir Taouli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To quantify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) perfusion and flow with the fast exchange regime-allowed Shutter-Speed model (SSM) compared to the Tofts model (TM). Materials and methods: In this prospective study, 25 patients with HCC underwent DCE-MRI. ROIs were placed in liver parenchyma, portal vein, aorta and HCC lesions. Signal intensities were analyzed employing dual-input TM and SSM models. ART (arterial fraction), Ktrans (contrast agent transfer rate constant from plasma to extravascular extracellular space), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), kep (contrast agent intravasation rate constant), and τi (mean intracellular water molecule lifetime) were compared between liver parenchyma and HCC, and ART, Ktrans, ve and kep were compared between models using Wilcoxon tests and limits of agreement. Test–retest reproducibility was assessed in 10 patients. Results: ART and ve obtained with TM; ART, ve, ke and τi obtained with SSM were significantly different between liver parenchyma and HCC (p <0.04). Parameters showed variable reproducibility (CV range 14.7–66.5 % for both models). Liver Ktrans and ve; HCC ve and kep were significantly different when estimated with the two models (p <0.03). Conclusion: Our results show differences when computed between the TM and the SSM. However, these differences are smaller than parameter reproducibilities and may be of limited clinical significance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-10
Number of pages10
JournalMagnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Dec 8 2015

Fingerprint

Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Perfusion
Liver
Contrast Media
Extracellular Space
Portal Vein
Aorta
Prospective Studies
Water

Keywords

  • Hepatocellular carcinoma
  • Liver
  • MRI

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

DCE-MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma : perfusion quantification with Tofts model versus shutter-speed model—initial experience. / Jajamovich, Guido H.; Huang, Wei; Besa, Cecilia; Li, Xin; Afzal, Aneela; Dyvorne, Hadrien A.; Taouli, Bachir.

In: Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 08.12.2015, p. 1-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4b27d970d43a4fc4bd28608c3902805e,
title = "DCE-MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma: perfusion quantification with Tofts model versus shutter-speed model—initial experience",
abstract = "Objective: To quantify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) perfusion and flow with the fast exchange regime-allowed Shutter-Speed model (SSM) compared to the Tofts model (TM). Materials and methods: In this prospective study, 25 patients with HCC underwent DCE-MRI. ROIs were placed in liver parenchyma, portal vein, aorta and HCC lesions. Signal intensities were analyzed employing dual-input TM and SSM models. ART (arterial fraction), Ktrans (contrast agent transfer rate constant from plasma to extravascular extracellular space), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), kep (contrast agent intravasation rate constant), and τi (mean intracellular water molecule lifetime) were compared between liver parenchyma and HCC, and ART, Ktrans, ve and kep were compared between models using Wilcoxon tests and limits of agreement. Test–retest reproducibility was assessed in 10 patients. Results: ART and ve obtained with TM; ART, ve, ke and τi obtained with SSM were significantly different between liver parenchyma and HCC (p <0.04). Parameters showed variable reproducibility (CV range 14.7–66.5 {\%} for both models). Liver Ktrans and ve; HCC ve and kep were significantly different when estimated with the two models (p <0.03). Conclusion: Our results show differences when computed between the TM and the SSM. However, these differences are smaller than parameter reproducibilities and may be of limited clinical significance.",
keywords = "Hepatocellular carcinoma, Liver, MRI",
author = "Jajamovich, {Guido H.} and Wei Huang and Cecilia Besa and Xin Li and Aneela Afzal and Dyvorne, {Hadrien A.} and Bachir Taouli",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s10334-015-0513-4",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--10",
journal = "Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology, and Medicine",
issn = "0968-5243",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - DCE-MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma

T2 - perfusion quantification with Tofts model versus shutter-speed model—initial experience

AU - Jajamovich, Guido H.

AU - Huang, Wei

AU - Besa, Cecilia

AU - Li, Xin

AU - Afzal, Aneela

AU - Dyvorne, Hadrien A.

AU - Taouli, Bachir

PY - 2015/12/8

Y1 - 2015/12/8

N2 - Objective: To quantify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) perfusion and flow with the fast exchange regime-allowed Shutter-Speed model (SSM) compared to the Tofts model (TM). Materials and methods: In this prospective study, 25 patients with HCC underwent DCE-MRI. ROIs were placed in liver parenchyma, portal vein, aorta and HCC lesions. Signal intensities were analyzed employing dual-input TM and SSM models. ART (arterial fraction), Ktrans (contrast agent transfer rate constant from plasma to extravascular extracellular space), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), kep (contrast agent intravasation rate constant), and τi (mean intracellular water molecule lifetime) were compared between liver parenchyma and HCC, and ART, Ktrans, ve and kep were compared between models using Wilcoxon tests and limits of agreement. Test–retest reproducibility was assessed in 10 patients. Results: ART and ve obtained with TM; ART, ve, ke and τi obtained with SSM were significantly different between liver parenchyma and HCC (p <0.04). Parameters showed variable reproducibility (CV range 14.7–66.5 % for both models). Liver Ktrans and ve; HCC ve and kep were significantly different when estimated with the two models (p <0.03). Conclusion: Our results show differences when computed between the TM and the SSM. However, these differences are smaller than parameter reproducibilities and may be of limited clinical significance.

AB - Objective: To quantify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) perfusion and flow with the fast exchange regime-allowed Shutter-Speed model (SSM) compared to the Tofts model (TM). Materials and methods: In this prospective study, 25 patients with HCC underwent DCE-MRI. ROIs were placed in liver parenchyma, portal vein, aorta and HCC lesions. Signal intensities were analyzed employing dual-input TM and SSM models. ART (arterial fraction), Ktrans (contrast agent transfer rate constant from plasma to extravascular extracellular space), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), kep (contrast agent intravasation rate constant), and τi (mean intracellular water molecule lifetime) were compared between liver parenchyma and HCC, and ART, Ktrans, ve and kep were compared between models using Wilcoxon tests and limits of agreement. Test–retest reproducibility was assessed in 10 patients. Results: ART and ve obtained with TM; ART, ve, ke and τi obtained with SSM were significantly different between liver parenchyma and HCC (p <0.04). Parameters showed variable reproducibility (CV range 14.7–66.5 % for both models). Liver Ktrans and ve; HCC ve and kep were significantly different when estimated with the two models (p <0.03). Conclusion: Our results show differences when computed between the TM and the SSM. However, these differences are smaller than parameter reproducibilities and may be of limited clinical significance.

KW - Hepatocellular carcinoma

KW - Liver

KW - MRI

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949488551&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84949488551&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10334-015-0513-4

DO - 10.1007/s10334-015-0513-4

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology, and Medicine

JF - Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology, and Medicine

SN - 0968-5243

ER -