Identifying tumor vascular permeability heterogeneity with magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents

被引:20
作者
Aref, M
Brechbiel, M
Wiener, EC
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Beckman Inst 4247, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Dept Nucl Plasma & Radiol Engn, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[3] Univ Illinois, Biomed Magnet Resonance Facil, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[4] Univ Illinois, Dept Med Informat Sci, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[5] Univ Illinois, Dept Mol & Integrat Physiol, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[6] NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
关键词
contrast agents; mammary tumors; permeability; MRI;
D O I
10.1097/00004424-200204000-00003
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. Dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MR mammography (MRM) uses tumor capillary density differences for prognosis. The heterogeneous response of permeability-surface area products (PS = Kp<---->t) was examined in mammary tumors, as a function of contrast agent size, to determine what effect ROI size might have on PS and prognosis. METHODS. DCE FLASH signal intensities were converted to gadolinium concentrations by a standard curve, which was fitted by a two-compartment model for the tumor's extravascular extracellular space (EES) volume fraction (v(e)), and the tumor volume normalized transfer rate between plasma and EES(Kp<---->tVT). RESULTS. For Gd-DTPA v(e) = 9% to 13% Kp<---->t/V-T = 0.01 to 0.06 minutes(-1), and the macromolecular agent, PAMAMTU-DTPA G = 4 v(e) = 0.8% to 1% Kp<---->t/V-T = 0.008 to 0.04 minutes(-1). Significant differences in Kp<---->t/V-T for local regions were found for both agents relative to the whole tumor and the macromolecular agent had greater dynamic range. CONCLUSIONS. Smaller ROI values or pixels should yield more accurate assessment of neovascularization.
引用
收藏
页码:178 / 192
页数:15
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [11] MR IMAGING OF THE BREAST WITH GD-DTPA - USE AND LIMITATIONS
    HEYWANG, SH
    WOLF, A
    PRUSS, E
    HILBERTZ, T
    EIERMANN, W
    PERMANETTER, W
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1989, 171 (01) : 95 - 103
  • [12] JONES BA, 1994, MATLAB
  • [13] Kawashima H, 2000, JMRI-J MAGN RESON IM, V11, P233, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(200003)11:3<233::AID-JMRI1>3.0.CO
  • [14] 2-X
  • [15] THE POSITIVE PREDICTIVE VALUE OF MAMMOGRAPHY
    KOPANS, DB
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1992, 158 (03) : 521 - 526
  • [16] Dynamic breast MR imaging: Are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?
    Kuhl, CK
    Mielcareck, P
    Klaschik, S
    Leutner, C
    Wardelmann, E
    Gieseke, J
    Schild, HH
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1999, 211 (01) : 101 - 110
  • [17] QUANTITATION OF BLOOD-BRAIN-BARRIER DEFECT BY MAGNETIC-RESONANCE-IMAGING AND GADOLINIUM-DTPA IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE-SCLEROSIS AND BRAIN-TUMORS
    LARSSON, HBW
    STUBGAARD, M
    FREDERIKSEN, JL
    JENSEN, M
    HENRIKSEN, O
    PAULSON, OB
    [J]. MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 1990, 16 (01) : 117 - 131
  • [18] Lucht R, 2000, MAGN RESON MED, V43, P9, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(200001)43:1<9::AID-MRM2>3.0.CO
  • [19] 2-C
  • [20] MATSUMURA Y, 1986, CANCER RES, V46, P6387