Foltz Warren, Driscoll Brandon, Laurence Lee Sangjune, Nayak Krishna, Nallapareddy Naren, Fatemi Ali, Ménard Cynthia, Coolens Catherine, Chung Caroline
Department of Medical Physics, Princess Margaret Cancer Center and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Tomography. 2019 Mar;5(1):77-89. doi: 10.18383/j.tom.2019.00001.
Accurate, patient-specific measurement of arterial input functions (AIF) may improve model-based analysis of vascular permeability. This study investigated factors affecting AIF measurements from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) magnitude (AIF) and phase (AIF) signals, and compared them against computed tomography (CT) (AIF), under controlled conditions relevant to clinical protocols using a multimodality flow phantom. The flow phantom was applied at flip angles of 20° and 30°, flow rates (3-7.5 mL/s), and peak bolus concentrations (0.5-10 mM), for in-plane and through-plane flow. Spatial 3D-FLASH signal and variable flip angle T1 profiles were measured to investigate in-flow and radiofrequency-related biases, and magnitude- and phase-derived Gd-DTPA concentrations were compared. MRI AIF performance was tested against AIF via Pearson correlation analysis. AIF was sensitive to imaging orientation, spatial location, flip angle, and flow rate, and it grossly underestimated AIF peak concentrations. Conversion to Gd-DTPA concentration using T1 taken at the same orientation and flow rate as the dynamic contrast-enhanced acquisition improved AIF accuracy; yet, AIF metrics remained variable and significantly reduced from AIF at concentrations above 2.5 mM. AIF performed equivalently within 1 mM to AIF across all tested conditions. AIF, but not AIF, reported equivalent measurements to AIF across the range of tested conditions. AIF showed superior robustness.
准确、针对患者的动脉输入函数(AIF)测量可能会改善基于模型的血管通透性分析。本研究调查了影响磁共振成像(MRI)幅度(AIF)和相位(AIF)信号中AIF测量的因素,并在与临床方案相关的受控条件下,使用多模态血流模型将它们与计算机断层扫描(CT)(AIF)进行比较。血流模型应用于20°和30°的翻转角、流速(3 - 7.5 mL/s)以及峰值团注浓度(0.5 - 10 mM),用于平面内和平面间血流。测量了空间3D - FLASH信号和可变翻转角T1曲线,以研究流入和射频相关偏差,并比较了幅度和相位衍生的钆 - 二乙三胺五乙酸(Gd - DTPA)浓度。通过Pearson相关分析测试了MRI AIF性能与AIF的对比。AIF对成像方向、空间位置、翻转角和流速敏感,并且严重低估了AIF峰值浓度。使用与动态对比增强采集相同方向和流速下获取的T1将其转换为Gd - DTPA浓度可提高AIF准确性;然而,在浓度高于2.5 mM时,AIF指标仍然可变且与AIF相比显著降低。在所有测试条件下,1 mM以内的AIF与AIF表现相当。在所有测试条件范围内,AIF报告的测量值与AIF相当,但AIF并非如此。AIF显示出更好的稳健性。