Cargando…
Evaluation of intravoxel incoherent motion fitting methods in low‐perfused tissue
PURPOSE: To investigate the robustness of constrained and simultaneous intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) fitting methods and the estimated IVIM parameters (D, D* and f) for applications in brain and low‐perfused tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Model data simulations relevant to brain and low‐perfu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5412931/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27545824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25411 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: To investigate the robustness of constrained and simultaneous intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) fitting methods and the estimated IVIM parameters (D, D* and f) for applications in brain and low‐perfused tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Model data simulations relevant to brain and low‐perfused tumor tissues were computed to assess the accuracy, relative bias, and reproducibility (CV%) of the fitting methods in estimating the IVIM parameters. The simulations were performed at a series of signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) levels to assess the influence of noise on the fitting. RESULTS: The estimated IVIM parameters from model simulations were found significantly different (P < 0.05) using simultaneous and constrained fitting methods at low SNR. Higher accuracy and reproducibility were achieved with the constrained fitting method. Using this method, the mean error (%) for the estimated IVIM parameters at a clinically relevant SNR = 40 were D 0.35, D* 41.0 and f 4.55 for the tumor model and D 1.87, D* 2.48, and f 7.49 for the gray matter model. The most robust parameters were the IVIM‐D and IVIM‐f. The IVIM‐D* was increasingly overestimated at low perfusion. CONCLUSION: A constrained IVIM fitting method provides more accurate and reproducible IVIM parameters in low‐perfused tissue compared with simultaneous fitting. Level of Evidence: 3 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;45:1325–1334 |
---|