2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2017.04.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of arterial input function selection on kinetic parameters in brain dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
30
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
6
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our findings are in agreement with a recent study comparing fully automated and semiautomated AIF determination approaches for prostate DCE-MRI data analysis (7), showing that K trans variation owing to AIF uncertainty is the most prominent compared with other PK parameters. A similar conclusion was drawn in a brain DCE-MRI study (8) that investigated PK parameter variations caused by the use of AIFs measured from different vessels.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our findings are in agreement with a recent study comparing fully automated and semiautomated AIF determination approaches for prostate DCE-MRI data analysis (7), showing that K trans variation owing to AIF uncertainty is the most prominent compared with other PK parameters. A similar conclusion was drawn in a brain DCE-MRI study (8) that investigated PK parameter variations caused by the use of AIFs measured from different vessels.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…These observations are consistent with the results from a simulation study using the SSM (16), which found significantly lower sensitivity of k ep and τ i to a 30% change in AIF amplitude compared with K trans and v e . Interestingly, the aforementioned brain DCE-MRI study (8) using the extended Tofts model (18) also showed lower variation of k ep in response to different AIF sources compared with K trans . Because k ep , like K trans , is also a measure of perfusion and permeability, the low sensitivity of k ep to AIF amplitude uncertainty suggests that k ep could be a more robust and reproducible imaging biomarker than K trans for DCE-MRI characterization of tissue microvasculature (37) when consistent and accurate AIF quantification is difficult.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Interpretations of DCE-MRI can involve qualitative analysis that requires computational-based curve-fitting algorithms using a bicompartmental model with AIF. However, one of its primary challenges is the reproducibility, as the quantification is heavily influenced by the definition of an appropriate AIF (52). Semiquantitative parameters seem to be more sensitive in the context of intratumoral heterogeneity, for example, to subtle physiologic differences that distinguish viable and hypoxic regions (48).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there are researches comparing ASL to positron emission tomography (PET) or microspheres for blood flow mapping, 33,34 it has not been validated against the ground truth blood flow directly since the ground truth in the real world is unknown. 1,35,36 And the gold standard microsphere deposition method or PET method suffer from many assumptions including the use of a global AIF. 37 The simulation in the current work based on the transport equation and microvascular network provides a ground truth for assessing quantification accuracy.…”
Section: Image Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%