4.5 Article

Shutter-speed analysis of contrast reagent bolus-tracking data: Preliminary observations in benign and malignant breast disease

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 724-729

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.20405

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB 00422] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS 40801] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The standard pharmacokinetic model applied to contrast reagent (CR) bolus-tracking (B-T) MRI (dynamic-contrast-enhanced) data makes the intrinsic assumption that equilibrium transcytolemmal water molecule exchange is effectively infinitely fast. Theory and simulation have suggested that this assumption can lead to significant errors. Recent analyses of animal model experimental data have confirmed two predicted signature inadequacies: a specific temporal mismatch with the B-T time-course and a CR dose-dependent underestimation of model parameters. The most parsimonious adjustment to account for this aspect leads to the shutter-speed pharmacokinetic model. Application of the latter to the animal model data mostly eliminates the two signature inadequacies. Here, the standard and shutter-speed models are applied to B-T data obtained from routine human breast examinations. The signature standard model temporal mismatch is found for each of the three invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) cases and for each of the three fibroadenoma (FA) cases studied. It is effectively eliminated by use of the shutter-speed model. The size of the mismatch is considerably greater for the IDC lesions than for the FA lesions, causing the shutter-speed model to exhibit improved discrimination of malignant IDC tumors from the benign FA lesions compared with the standard model. Furthermore, the shutter-speed model clearly reveals focal hot spots of elevated CR perfusion/permeation present in only the malignant tumors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available