4.7 Article

Gadolinium-enhanced echo-planar T2-weighted MRI of tumors in the extracranial head and neck: Feasibility study and preliminary results using a distributed-parameter tracer kinetic analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 963-969

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21311

关键词

perfusion-weighted MRI; head and neck tumors; distributed-parameter tracer kinetic model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To examine the feasibility of first-pass dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) T2-weighted MRI of tumors in the extracranial head and neck by applying a distributed-parameter (DP) tracer kinetic model to quantify the perfusion parameters. Materials and Methods: A total of 16 patients with primary malignant and benign tumors in the head and neck underwent DCE-MR studies. A spin-echo (SE) ecbo-planar-imaging (EPI) MR-sequence was applied for first-pass DCE-T2-weighted imaging. The data were postprocessed applying a DP tracer kinetic model that accounts for capillary-tissue exchange. Region-of-interest (ROI) analysis was performed in the tumor sites and the adjacent normal tissue. Blood flow (F), intravascular blood volume (v(1)), extravascular extracellular volume (v(2)), difference in bolus arrival time between arterial input and tissue (t(0)), intravascular mean transit time (t(1)), permeability (PS), and extraction ratio (E) maps were generated for each patient. Results: All perfusion values in the tumor sites were significantly different (0.000 <= P <= 0.01) than those in the normal muscle tissue. The median perfusion values in the tumor tissue were: F = 150.5 mL/minute/100 g, v(1) = 11.0 mL/100 g, v(2) = 31.5 mL/100 g, t(0) = 4.5 seconds, t(1) = 8.0 seconds, PS = 96.0 mL/minute/100 g, and E = 32.5. Conclusion: EPI-T2-weighted DCE-MR in head and neck tumors as well as quantification of the perfusion values using DP model physiologic imaging was feasible and the promising initial results have encourages further validation studies in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据