4.5 Article

Assessment of Multiexponential Diffusion Features as MRI Cancer Therapy Response Metrics

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 64, 期 5, 页码 1499-1509

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22507

关键词

diffusion weighted-MRI; multiexponential diffusion; glioma; treatment response; preclinical

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01CA85878, U24CA83099, P50CA93990]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to empirically test the effect of chemotherapy-induced tissue changes in a glioma model as measured by several diffusion indices calculated from nonmonoexponential formalisms over a wide range of b-values. We also compared these results to the conventional two-point apparent diffusion coefficient calculation using nominal b-values. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed over an extended range of b-values (120-4000 sec/mm(2)) on intracerebral rat 9L gliomas before and after a single dose of 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea. Diffusion indices from three formalisms of diffusion-weighted signal decay [(a) two-point analytical calculation using either low or high b-values, (b) a stretched exponential formalism, and (c) a biexponential fit] were tested for responsiveness to therapy-induced differences between control and treated groups. Diffusion indices sensitive to fast diffusion' produced the largest response to treatment, which resulted in significant differences between groups. These trends were not observed for 'slow diffusion' indices. Although the highest rate of response was observed from the biexponential formalism, this was not found to be significantly different from the conventional monoexponential apparent diffusion coefficient method. In conclusion, parameters from the more complicated nonmonoexponential formalisms did not provide additional sensitivity to treatment response in this glioma model beyond that observed from the two-point conventional monoexponential apparent diffusion coefficient method. Magn Reson Med 64:1499-1509, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.5
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