Filice Silvano, Crisi Girolamo
Department of Medical Physics and the Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.
J Neuroimaging. 2016 Jan-Feb;26(1):124-9. doi: 10.1111/jon.12254. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) perfusion estimates of high-grade brain gliomas (HGG) due to the use of an input function (IF) obtained respectively from arterial (AIF) and venous (VIF) approaches by two different commercially available software applications.
This prospective study includes 20 patients with pathologically confirmed diagnosis of high-grade gliomas. The data source was processed by using two DCE dedicated commercial packages, both based on the extended Toft model, but the first customized to obtain input function from arterial measurement and the second from sagittal sinus sampling. The quantitative parametric perfusion maps estimated from the two software packages were compared by means of a region of interest (ROI) analysis. The resulting input functions from venous and arterial data were also compared.
No significant difference has been found between the perfusion parameters obtained with the two different software packages (P-value < .05). The comparison of the VIFs and AIFs obtained by the two packages showed no statistical differences.
Direct comparison of DCE-MRI measurements with IF generated by means of arterial or venous waveform led to no statistical difference in quantitative metrics for evaluating HGG. However, additional research involving DCE-MRI acquisition protocols and post-processing would be beneficial to further substantiate the effectiveness of venous approach as the IF method compared with arterial-based IF measurement.
本研究旨在评估使用两种不同商业软件应用程序分别从动脉(AIF)和静脉(VIF)途径获得的输入函数(IF)对高级别脑胶质瘤(HGG)进行动态对比增强(DCE)磁共振成像(MRI)灌注估计时的差异。
这项前瞻性研究纳入了20例经病理确诊为高级别胶质瘤的患者。使用两个基于扩展Toft模型的DCE专用商业软件包对数据源进行处理,第一个软件包通过动脉测量获取输入函数,第二个软件包通过矢状窦采样获取输入函数。通过感兴趣区域(ROI)分析比较两个软件包估计的定量参数灌注图。还比较了从静脉和动脉数据得到的输入函数。
两种不同软件包获得的灌注参数之间未发现显著差异(P值<0.05)。两个软件包获得的VIF和AIF的比较未显示出统计学差异。
通过动脉或静脉波形生成的IF对DCE-MRI测量进行直接比较,在评估HGG的定量指标上未产生统计学差异。然而,涉及DCE-MRI采集协议和后处理的进一步研究将有助于进一步证实与基于动脉的IF测量相比,静脉途径作为IF方法的有效性。