Voxelwise comparison of perfusion parameters estimated using dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) computed tomography and DCE-magnetic resonance imaging in locally advanced cervical cancer

References

• Yuh WTC, Mayr NA, Jarjoura D, Wu D, Grecula JC, Lo SS, et al. Predicting control of primary tumor and survival by DCE MRI during early therapy in cervical cancer. Invest Radiol 2009;44:343–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halle C, Andersen E, Lando M, Aarnes EK, Hasvold G, Holden M, et al. Hypoxia-induced gene expression in chemoradioresistant cervical cancer revealed by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Cancer Res 2012;72:5285–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen EKF, Hole KH, Lund KV, Sundfør K, Kristensen GB, Lyng H, et al. Pharmacokinetic parameters derived from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of cervical cancers predict chemoradiotherapy outcome. Radiother Oncol 2013;107: 117–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen EKF, Kristensen GB, Lyng H, Malinen E. Pharmacokinetic analysis and k-means clustering of DCEMR images for radiotherapy outcome prediction of advanced cervical cancers. Acta Oncol 2011;50:859–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellingsen C, Hompland T, Mathiesen B, Rofstad EK. Microenvironment-associated lymph node metastasis of human cervical carcinoma xenografts. Acta Oncol 2012; 51:465–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Søvik A, Skogmo HK, Bruland OS, Olsen DR, Malinen E. DCEMRI monitoring of canine tumors during fractionated radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2008;47:1249–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Øvrebø KM, Ellingsen C, Hompland T, Rofstad EK. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the metastatic potential of tumors: A preclinical study of cervical carcinoma and melanoma xenografts. Acta Oncol 2013;52:604–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Øvrebø KM, Hompland T, Mathiesen B, Rofstad EK. Assessment of hypoxia and radiation response in intramuscular experimental tumors by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Radiother Oncol 2012;102: 429–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulliksrud K, Øvrebø KM, Mathiesen B, Rofstad EK. Differentiation between hypoxic and non-hypoxic experimental tumors by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Radiother Oncol 2011;98:360–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng HLM, Wright GA. Rapid high-resolution T(1) mapping by variable flip angles: Accurate and precise measurements in the presence of radiofrequency field inhomogeneity. Magn Reson Med 2006;55:566–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts C, Little R, Watson Y, Zhao S, Buckley DL, Parker GJM. The effect of blood inflow and B(1)-field inhomogeneity on measurement of the arterial input function in axial 3D spoiled gradient echo dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 2011;65:108–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazelaire C, Rofsky N, Duhamel G, Zhang J, Michaelson MD, George D, et al. Combined T2* and T1 measurements for improved perfusion and permeability studies in high field using dynamic contrast enhancement. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2083–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazarpoor M. Effect of concentration of contrast agent on the inflow effect for measuring absolute perfusion by use of inversion recovery T1-weighted TurboFLASH images. Radiol Phys Technol 2012;5:86–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ivancevic MK, Zimine I, Montet X, Hyacinthe JN, Lazeyras F, Foxall D, et al. Inflow effect correction in fast gradient-echo perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Med 2003; 50:885–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang C, Stadler WM, Karczmar GS, Milosevic M, Yeung I, Haider MA. Comparison of quantitative parameters in cervix cancer measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and CT. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:1601–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker GJM, Roberts C, Macdonald A, Buonaccorsi GA, Cheung S, Buckley DL, et al. Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast- enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006;56:993–1000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang C, Karczmar GS, Medved M, Stadler WM. Multiple reference tissue method for contrast agent arterial input function estimation. Magn Reson Med 2007;58: 1266–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korporaal JG, van den Berg CAT, van Osch MJP, Groenendaal G, van Vulpen M, van der Heide UA. Phase-based arterial input function measurements in the femoral arteries for quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI and comparison with DCE-CT. Magn Reson Med 2011;66:1267–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akbudak E, Conturo TE. Arterial input functions from MR phase imaging. Magn Reson Med 1996;36:809–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akbudak E, Norberg RE, Conturo TE. Contrast-agent phase effects: An experimental system for analysis of susceptibility, concentration, and bolus input function kinetics. Magn Reson Med 1997;38:990–1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanderup K, Nielsen SK, Nyvang GB, Pedersen EM, Røhl L, Aagaard T, et al. From point A to the sculpted pear: MR image guidance significantly improves tumour dose and sparing of organs at risk in brachytherapy of cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2010;94:173–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pötter R, Georg P, Dimopoulos JCA, Grimm M, Berger D, Nesvacil N, et al. Clinical outcome of protocol based image (MRI) guided adaptive brachytherapy combined with 3D conformal radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2011;100:116–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos JCA, Petrow P, Tanderup K, Petric P, Berger D, Kirisits C, et al. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (IV): Basic principles and parameters for MR imaging within the frame of image based adaptive cervix cancer brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2012;103:113–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookes JA, Redpath TW, Gilbert FJ, Murray AD, Staff RT. Accuracy of T1 measurement in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI using two- and three-dimensional variable flip angle fast low-angle shot. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;9:163–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowland P, Mansfield P, Bullock P, Stehling M, Worthington B, Firth J. Dynamic studies of gadolinium uptake in brain tumors using inversion-recovery echo-planar imaging. Magn Reson Med 1992;26:241–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005;40:715–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma P, Socolow J, Patel S, Pettigrew RI, Oshinski JN. Effect of Gd-DTPA-BMA on blood and myocardial T1 at 1.5T and 3T in humans. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23: 323–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korporaal JG, van den Berg CAT, Jeukens CRLPN, Groenendaal G, Moman MR, Luijten P, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT for prostate cancer: Relationship between image noise, voxel size, and repeatability. Radiology 2010;256:976–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tofts PS. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:91–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murase K. Efficient method for calculating kinetic parameters using T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2004;51: 858–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson E, Milosevic MF, Haider MA, Yeung IWT. Functional CT imaging of prostate cancer. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:3085–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SM, Haider MA, Milosevic M, Yeung IWT. A comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MR imaging-derived measurements in patients with cervical cancer. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2013;33:150–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murase K, Kikuchi K, Miki H, Shimizu T, Ikezoe J. Determination of arterial input function using fuzzy clustering for quantification of cerebral blood flow with dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:797–806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjølby BF, Mikkelsen IK, Pedersen M, Østergaard L, Kiselev VG. Analysis of partial volume effects on arterial input functions using gradient echo: A simulation study. Magn Reson Med 2009;61:1300–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korporaal JG. Ph.D. Dissertation: Dynamic contrast- enhanced (DCE) imaging for tumor delineation in prostate cancer. Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Miles KA, Young H, Chica SL, Esser PD. Quantitative contrast-enhanced computed tomography: Is there a need for system calibration?. Eur Radiol 2007;17:919–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takanami K, Higano S, Takase K, Kaneta T, Yamada T, Ishiya H, et al. Validation of the use of calibration factors between the iodine concentration and the computed tomography number measured outside the objects for estimation of iodine concentration inside the objects: Phantom experiment. Radiat Med 2008;26:237–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Persoon LCGG, Podesta M, van Elmpt WJC, Nijsten SMJJG, Verhaegen F. A fast three-dimensional gamma evaluation using a GPU utilizing texture memory for on-the-fly interpolations. Med Phys 2011;38:4032–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson SB, West CML, Davidson SE, Carrington BM, Hutchison G, Jones AP, et al. A comparison of tracer kinetic models for T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: Application in carcinoma of the cervix. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:691–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turetschek K, Preda A, Novikov V, Brasch RC, Weinmann HJ, Wunderbaldinger P, et al. Tumor microvascular changes in antiangiogenic treatment: Assessment by magnetic resonance contrast media of different molecular weights. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:138–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar