Cargando…

Quantifying lumbar vertebral perfusion by a Tofts model on DCE-MRI using segmental versus aortic arterial input function

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of arterial input function (AIF) selection on the quantification of vertebral perfusion using axial dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). In this study, axial DCE-MRI was performed on 2 vertebrae in each of eight he...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Yi-Jui, Yang, Hou-Ting, Yao, Melissa Min-Szu, Lin, Shao-Chieh, Cho, Der-Yang, Shen, Wu-Chung, Juan, Chun-Jung, Chan, Wing P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7859214/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33536471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82300-6
Descripción
Sumario:The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of arterial input function (AIF) selection on the quantification of vertebral perfusion using axial dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). In this study, axial DCE-MRI was performed on 2 vertebrae in each of eight healthy volunteers (mean age, 36.9 years; 5 men) using a 1.5-T scanner. The pharmacokinetic parameters K(trans), v(e), and v(p), derived using a Tofts model on axial DCE-MRI of the lumbar vertebrae, were evaluated using various AIFs: the population-based aortic AIF (AIF_PA), a patient-specific aortic AIF (AIF_A) and a patient-specific segmental arterial AIF (AIF_SA). Additionally, peaks and delay times were changed to simulate the effects of various AIFs on the calculation of perfusion parameters. Nonparametric analyses including the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Kruskal–Wallis test with a Dunn–Bonferroni post hoc analysis were performed. In simulation, K(trans) and v(e) increased as the peak in the AIF decreased, but v(p) increased when delay time in the AIF increased. In humans, the estimated K(trans) and v(e) were significantly smaller using AIF_A compared to AIF_SA no matter the computation style (pixel-wise or region-of-interest based). Both these perfusion parameters were significantly greater using AIF_SA compared to AIF_A.