Jajamovich Guido H, Calcagno Claudia, Dyvorne Hadrien A, Rusinek Henry, Taouli Bachir
Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States of America.
Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 29;9(12):e115667. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115667. eCollection 2014.
To assess the quality of the arterial input function (AIF) reconstructed using a dedicated pre-bolus low-dose contrast material injection imaged with a high temporal resolution and the resulting estimated liver perfusion parameters.
In this IRB-approved prospective study, 24 DCE-MRI examinations were performed in 21 patients with liver disease (M/F 17/4, mean age 56 y). The examination consisted of 1.3 mL and 0.05 mmol/kg of gadobenate dimeglumine for pre-bolus and main bolus acquisitions, respectively. The concentration-curve of the abdominal aorta in the pre-bolus acquisition was used to reconstruct the AIF. AIF quality and shape parameters obtained with pre-bolus and main bolus acquisitions and the resulting estimated hepatic perfusion parameters obtained with a dual-input single compartment model were compared between the 2 methods. Test-retest reproducibility of perfusion parameters were assessed in three patients.
The quality of the pre-bolus AIF curve was significantly better than that of main bolus AIF. Shape parameters peak concentration, area under the time activity curve of gadolinium contrast at 60 s and upslope of pre-bolus AIF were all significantly higher, while full width at half maximum was significantly lower than shape parameters of main bolus AIF. Improved liver perfusion parameter reproducibility was observed using pre-bolus acquisition [coefficient of variation (CV) of 4.2%-38.7% for pre-bolus vs. 12.1-71.4% for main bolus] with the exception of distribution volume (CV of 23.6% for pre-bolus vs. 15.8% for main bolus). The CVs between pre-bolus and main bolus for the perfusion parameters were lower than 14%.
The AIF reconstructed with pre-bolus low dose contrast injection displays better quality and shape parameters and enables improved liver perfusion parameter reproducibility, although the resulting liver perfusion parameters demonstrated no clinically significant differences between pre-bolus and main bolus acquisitions.
评估使用专用的团注前低剂量对比剂注射并以高时间分辨率成像重建的动脉输入函数（AIF）的质量以及由此产生的估计肝脏灌注参数。
在这项经机构审查委员会（IRB）批准的前瞻性研究中，对21例肝病患者（男/女17/4，平均年龄56岁）进行了24次动态对比增强磁共振成像（DCE-MRI）检查。检查分别使用1.3 mL和0.05 mmol/kg的钆布醇双葡甲胺进行团注前和团注期采集。团注前采集中腹主动脉的浓度曲线用于重建AIF。比较两种方法在团注前和团注期采集中获得的AIF质量和形状参数，以及使用双输入单室模型获得的由此产生的估计肝脏灌注参数。在三名患者中评估灌注参数的重测再现性。
团注前AIF曲线的质量明显优于团注期AIF。形状参数峰值浓度、钆对比剂在60秒时的时间-活性曲线下面积以及团注前AIF的上升斜率均显著更高，而半高宽显著低于团注期AIF的形状参数。使用团注前采集观察到肝脏灌注参数再现性得到改善[团注前的变异系数（CV）为4.2%-38.7%，团注期为12.1%-71.4%]，分布容积除外（团注前的CV为23.6%，团注期为15.8%）。灌注参数在团注前和团注期之间的CV低于14%。
尽管团注前和团注期采集所得到的肝脏灌注参数在临床上无显著差异，但使用团注前低剂量对比剂注射重建的AIF显示出更好的质量和形状参数，并能提高肝脏灌注参数的再现性。
