MR perfusion measurements on pharyngeal tumors: comparison of quantification strategies.
For the case of pharyngeal carcinomas, the clinical value as well as the stability of several evaluation methods of MR tomographic perfusion measurement are compared. Eighteen patients suffering from histologically proven squamous cell carcinomas were investigated by MR tomography (1.5 T, 0.2 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA) prior to and during radiation therapy. Perfusion measurements were performed using a double-echo FLASH sequence. Parameters describing regional blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time, and interstitial concentration of contrast medium (CM) were calculated, applying seven different combinations of correction approaches (separating the shortening of T1 and T2*, arterial input function (AIF), and tumor shunts). Their correlations to MR independent tumor physiological parameters were analyzed (metabolic activity measurements using 18F-FDG-PET, polarographical pO2 measurement, tumor volume). Significant improvements of the correlation between perfusion-dependent and other tumor physiological parameters could be achieved by decoupling the shortening of T1 and T2* and by applying of the tumor shunt model. Deconvolution from the AIF deteriorated the correlation. Therefore, the elimination of the T1 shortening due to interstitial CM proves to be essential for MR perfusion measurements on contrast medium uptaking lesions. Depending on the measurement conditions (temporal resolution, signal-to-noise ratio), the consideration of the AIF can even make the results significantly worse by introducing additional measuring errors.
Hietschold
Volker
V
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Technology Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, D-01307 Dresden, Germany. Volker.Hietschold@Uniklinikum-Dresden.de
Kittner
Thomas
T
Schreyer
Michele
M
Appold
Steffen
S
Beuthien-Baumann
Bettina
B
Laniado
Michael
M
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000465:Algorithms; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods*; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009389:Neovascularization, Pathologic / Q000150:complications / Q000473:pathology*; D010610:Pharyngeal Neoplasms / Q000098:blood supply* / Q000150:complications / Q000473:pathology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012720:Severity of Illness Index
Rofo. 2002 Aug;174(8):973-8
12142973
Radiology. 2000 Mar;214(3):912-7
10715068
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997 Jan-Feb;7(1):230-5
9039621
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994 Jun 15;29(3):439-42
8005796
Magn Reson Med. 1999 Jul;42(1):42-52
10398949
Magn Reson Imaging. 1994;12(1):81-91
8295511
Magn Reson Med. 1996 Nov;36(5):715-25
8916022
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1991 Jul-Aug;15(4):621-8
2061479
BMJ. 1998 Apr 18;316(7139):1236-8
9553006
Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR. 1984;16(2):167-72
6505043
Magn Reson Med. 1999 Jul;42(1):167-72
10398963
Cancer Res. 1991 Jun 15;51(12):3316-22
2040005
Acta Oncol. 2001;40(4):519-28
11504313
Br J Radiol. 1993 Mar;66(783):181-96
7682469
Semin Radiat Oncol. 1998 Jul;8(3):176-82
9634494