Lee Joonsang, Cárdenas-Rodríguez Julio, Pagel Mark D, Platt Simon, Kent Marc, Zhao Qun
Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Sep;32(7):845-53. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2014.04.007. Epub 2014 Apr 24.
This study compared three methods for analyzing DCE-MRI data with a reference region (RR) model: a linear least-square fitting with numerical analysis (LLSQ-N), a nonlinear least-square fitting with numerical analysis (NLSQ-N), and an analytical analysis (NLSQ-A). The accuracy and precision of estimating the pharmacokinetic parameter ratios KR and VR, where KR is defined as a ratio between the two volume transfer constants, K(trans,TOI) and K(trans,RR), and VR is the ratio between the two extracellular extravascular volumes, ve,TOI and ve,RR, were assessed using simulations under various signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and temporal resolutions (4, 6, 30, and 60s). When no noise was added, the simulations showed that the mean percent error (MPE) for the estimated KR and VR using the LLSQ-N and NLSQ-N methods ranged from 1.2% to 31.6% with various temporal resolutions while the NLSQ-A method maintained a very high accuracy (<1.0×10(-4) %) regardless of the temporal resolution. The simulation also indicated that the LLSQ-N and NLSQ-N methods appear to underestimate the parameter ratios more than the NLSQ-A method. In addition, seven in vivo DCE-MRI datasets from spontaneously occurring canine brain tumors were analyzed with each method. Results for the in vivo study showed that KR (ranging from 0.63 to 3.11) and VR (ranging from 2.82 to 19.16) for the NLSQ-A method were both higher than results for the other two methods (KR ranging from 0.01 to 1.29 and VR ranging from 1.48 to 19.59). A temporal downsampling experiment showed that the averaged percent error for the NLSQ-A method (8.45%) was lower than the other two methods (22.97% for LLSQ-N and 65.02% for NLSQ-N) for KR, and the averaged percent error for the NLSQ-A method (6.33%) was lower than the other two methods (6.57% for LLSQ-N and 13.66% for NLSQ-N) for VR. Using simulations, we showed that the NLSQ-A method can estimate the ratios of pharmacokinetic parameters more accurately and precisely than the NLSQ-N and LLSQ-N methods over various SNRs and temporal resolutions. All simulations were validated with in vivo DCE MRI data.
本研究比较了三种使用参考区域(RR)模型分析动态对比增强磁共振成像(DCE-MRI)数据的方法:数值分析线性最小二乘拟合(LLSQ-N)、数值分析非线性最小二乘拟合(NLSQ-N)和解析分析(NLSQ-A)。使用不同信噪比(SNR)和时间分辨率(4、6、30和60秒)下的模拟评估了药代动力学参数比KR和VR的估计准确性和精密度,其中KR定义为两个容积转运常数K(trans,TOI)和K(trans,RR)之间的比值,VR是两个细胞外血管外容积ve,TOI和ve,RR之间的比值。在不添加噪声时,模拟显示,使用LLSQ-N和NLSQ-N方法估计KR和VR时,在不同时间分辨率下平均百分比误差(MPE)范围为1.2%至31.6%,而NLSQ-A方法无论时间分辨率如何均保持非常高的准确性(<1.0×10(-4) %)。模拟还表明,LLSQ-N和NLSQ-N方法似乎比NLSQ-A方法更低估参数比。此外,用每种方法分析了来自自发发生的犬脑肿瘤的7个体内DCE-MRI数据集。体内研究结果显示,NLSQ-A方法的KR(范围为0.63至3.11)和VR(范围为2.82至19.16)均高于其他两种方法(KR范围为0.01至1.29,VR范围为1.48至19.59)。一项时间下采样实验表明,对于KR,NLSQ-A方法的平均百分比误差(8.45%)低于其他两种方法(LLSQ-N为22.97%,NLSQ-N为65.02%);对于VR,NLSQ-A方法的平均百分比误差(6.33%)低于其他两种方法(LLSQ-N为6.57%,NLSQ-N为13.66%)。通过模拟,我们表明在不同的SNR和时间分辨率下,NLSQ-A方法比NLSQ-N和LLSQ-N方法能更准确、精确地估计药代动力学参数比。所有模拟均用体内DCE MRI数据进行了验证。