Cargando…
Comparison of DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters and FMISO‐PET uptake parameters in head and neck cancer patients
PURPOSE: Tumor hypoxia is a major cause of radiation resistance, often present in various solid tumors. Dynamic [(18)F]‐fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) PET imaging is able to reliably assess tumor hypoxia. Comprehensive characterization of tumor microenvironment through FMISO‐PET and dynamic contrast enh...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5485084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28317128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.12228 |
_version_ | 1783246003064799232 |
---|---|
author | Simoncic, Urban Leibfarth, Sara Welz, Stefan Schwenzer, Nina Schmidt, Holger Reischl, Gerald Pfannenberg, Christina la Fougère, Christian Nikolaou, Konstantin Zips, Daniel Thorwarth, Daniela |
author_facet | Simoncic, Urban Leibfarth, Sara Welz, Stefan Schwenzer, Nina Schmidt, Holger Reischl, Gerald Pfannenberg, Christina la Fougère, Christian Nikolaou, Konstantin Zips, Daniel Thorwarth, Daniela |
author_sort | Simoncic, Urban |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Tumor hypoxia is a major cause of radiation resistance, often present in various solid tumors. Dynamic [(18)F]‐fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) PET imaging is able to reliably assess tumor hypoxia. Comprehensive characterization of tumor microenvironment through FMISO‐PET and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MR multimodality imaging might be a valuable alternative to the dynamic FMISO‐PET acquisition. The aim of this work was to explore the correlation between the FMISO‐PET and DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters. METHODS: This study was done on head and neck cancer patients (N = 6), who were imaged dynamically with FMISO‐PET and DCE‐MRI on the same day. Images were registered and analyzed for kinetics on a voxel basis. FMISO‐PET images were analyzed with the two‐tissue compartment three rate‐constant model. Additionally, tumor‐to‐muscle ratio (TMR) maps were evaluated. DCE‐MRI was analyzed with the extended Tofts model. Voxel‐wise Pearson's coefficients were calculated for each patient to assess pairwise parameter correlations. RESULTS: Median correlations between FMISO uptake parameters and DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters varied across the parameter pairs in the range from −0.05 to 0.71. The highest median correlation of r = 0.71 was observed for the pair V (b)−v (p), while the K (1)−K (trans) median correlation was r = 0.45. Median correlation coefficients for the K (1)−v (p) and the K (i)−K (trans) pairs were r = 0.42 and r = 0.32, respectively. Correlations between FMISO uptake rate parameter K (i) and DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters varied substantially across the patients, whereas correlations between the FMISO and DCE‐MRI vascular parameters were consistently high. Median TMR‐K (1) and TMR‐K (trans) correlations were r = 0.52 and r = 0.46, respectively, but varied substantially across the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this clinical evidence, we can conclude that the vascular fraction parameters obtained through DCE‐MRI kinetic analysis or FMISO kinetic analysis measure the same biological property, while other kinetic parameters are unrelated. These results might be useful in the design of future clinical trials involving FMISO‐PET/DCE‐MR multimodality imaging for the assessment of tumor microenvironment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5485084 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54850842017-07-11 Comparison of DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters and FMISO‐PET uptake parameters in head and neck cancer patients Simoncic, Urban Leibfarth, Sara Welz, Stefan Schwenzer, Nina Schmidt, Holger Reischl, Gerald Pfannenberg, Christina la Fougère, Christian Nikolaou, Konstantin Zips, Daniel Thorwarth, Daniela Med Phys QUANTITATIVE IMAGING AND IMAGE PROCESSING PURPOSE: Tumor hypoxia is a major cause of radiation resistance, often present in various solid tumors. Dynamic [(18)F]‐fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) PET imaging is able to reliably assess tumor hypoxia. Comprehensive characterization of tumor microenvironment through FMISO‐PET and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MR multimodality imaging might be a valuable alternative to the dynamic FMISO‐PET acquisition. The aim of this work was to explore the correlation between the FMISO‐PET and DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters. METHODS: This study was done on head and neck cancer patients (N = 6), who were imaged dynamically with FMISO‐PET and DCE‐MRI on the same day. Images were registered and analyzed for kinetics on a voxel basis. FMISO‐PET images were analyzed with the two‐tissue compartment three rate‐constant model. Additionally, tumor‐to‐muscle ratio (TMR) maps were evaluated. DCE‐MRI was analyzed with the extended Tofts model. Voxel‐wise Pearson's coefficients were calculated for each patient to assess pairwise parameter correlations. RESULTS: Median correlations between FMISO uptake parameters and DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters varied across the parameter pairs in the range from −0.05 to 0.71. The highest median correlation of r = 0.71 was observed for the pair V (b)−v (p), while the K (1)−K (trans) median correlation was r = 0.45. Median correlation coefficients for the K (1)−v (p) and the K (i)−K (trans) pairs were r = 0.42 and r = 0.32, respectively. Correlations between FMISO uptake rate parameter K (i) and DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters varied substantially across the patients, whereas correlations between the FMISO and DCE‐MRI vascular parameters were consistently high. Median TMR‐K (1) and TMR‐K (trans) correlations were r = 0.52 and r = 0.46, respectively, but varied substantially across the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this clinical evidence, we can conclude that the vascular fraction parameters obtained through DCE‐MRI kinetic analysis or FMISO kinetic analysis measure the same biological property, while other kinetic parameters are unrelated. These results might be useful in the design of future clinical trials involving FMISO‐PET/DCE‐MR multimodality imaging for the assessment of tumor microenvironment. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-04-20 2017-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5485084/ /pubmed/28317128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.12228 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | QUANTITATIVE IMAGING AND IMAGE PROCESSING Simoncic, Urban Leibfarth, Sara Welz, Stefan Schwenzer, Nina Schmidt, Holger Reischl, Gerald Pfannenberg, Christina la Fougère, Christian Nikolaou, Konstantin Zips, Daniel Thorwarth, Daniela Comparison of DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters and FMISO‐PET uptake parameters in head and neck cancer patients |
title | Comparison of DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters and FMISO‐PET uptake parameters in head and neck cancer patients |
title_full | Comparison of DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters and FMISO‐PET uptake parameters in head and neck cancer patients |
title_fullStr | Comparison of DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters and FMISO‐PET uptake parameters in head and neck cancer patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters and FMISO‐PET uptake parameters in head and neck cancer patients |
title_short | Comparison of DCE‐MRI kinetic parameters and FMISO‐PET uptake parameters in head and neck cancer patients |
title_sort | comparison of dce‐mri kinetic parameters and fmiso‐pet uptake parameters in head and neck cancer patients |
topic | QUANTITATIVE IMAGING AND IMAGE PROCESSING |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5485084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28317128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.12228 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT simoncicurban comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT leibfarthsara comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT welzstefan comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT schwenzernina comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT schmidtholger comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT reischlgerald comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT pfannenbergchristina comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT lafougerechristian comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT nikolaoukonstantin comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT zipsdaniel comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients AT thorwarthdaniela comparisonofdcemrikineticparametersandfmisopetuptakeparametersinheadandneckcancerpatients |