Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

DCE-MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma: perfusion quantification with Tofts model versus shutter-speed model—initial experience

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To quantify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) perfusion and flow with the fast exchange regime-allowed Shutter-Speed model (SSM) compared to the Tofts model (TM).

Materials and methods

In this prospective study, 25 patients with HCC underwent DCE-MRI. ROIs were placed in liver parenchyma, portal vein, aorta and HCC lesions. Signal intensities were analyzed employing dual-input TM and SSM models. ART (arterial fraction), K trans (contrast agent transfer rate constant from plasma to extravascular extracellular space), v e (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), k ep (contrast agent intravasation rate constant), and τ i (mean intracellular water molecule lifetime) were compared between liver parenchyma and HCC, and ART, K trans, v e and k ep were compared between models using Wilcoxon tests and limits of agreement. Test–retest reproducibility was assessed in 10 patients.

Results

ART and v e obtained with TM; ART, v e , k e and τ i obtained with SSM were significantly different between liver parenchyma and HCC (p < 0.04). Parameters showed variable reproducibility (CV range 14.7–66.5 % for both models). Liver K trans and v e ; HCC v e and k ep were significantly different when estimated with the two models (p < 0.03).

Conclusion

Our results show differences when computed between the TM and the SSM. However, these differences are smaller than parameter reproducibilities and may be of limited clinical significance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C et al (2010) Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 127:2893–2917

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. El-Serag HB, Davila JA, Petersen NJ, McGlynn KA (2003) The continuing increase in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: an update. Ann Intern Med 139:817–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Folkman J (2007) Angiogenesis: an organizing principle for drug discovery? Nat Rev Drug Discov 6:273–286

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhu AX, Duda DG, Sahani DV, Jain RK (2011) HCC and angiogenesis: possible targets and future directions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 8:292–301

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2000) The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100:57–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144:646–674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee JM, Yoon JH, Joo I, Woo HS (2012) Recent Advances in CT and MR Imaging for Evaluation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Liver Cancer 1:22–40

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Earls JP, Theise ND, Weinreb JC, DeCorato DR, Krinsky GA et al (1996) Dysplastic nodules and hepatocellular carcinoma: thin-section MR imaging of explanted cirrhotic livers with pathologic correlation. Radiology 201:207–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Libbrecht L, Bielen D, Verslype C, Vanbeckevoort D, Pirenne J et al (2002) Focal lesions in cirrhotic explant livers: pathological evaluation and accuracy of pretransplantation imaging examinations. Liver Transplant 8:749–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burrel M, Llovet JM, Ayuso C, Iglesias C, Sala M et al (2003) MRI angiography is superior to helical CT for detection of HCC prior to liver transplantation: an explant correlation. Hepatology 38:1034–1042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Taouli B, Losada M, Holland A, Krinsky G (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 127:S144–S152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Willatt JM, Hussain HK, Adusumilli S, Marrero JA (2008) MR Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver: challenges and controversies. Radiology 247:311–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Guthrie JA (2013) Cirrhosis and focal liver lesions: MRI findings. Imaging 22:68887955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Padhani AR (1999) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in human tumours. Br J Radiol 72:427–431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Padhani AR (2002) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical oncology: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:407–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Parker GJ, Suckling J, Tanner SF, Padhani AR, Revell PB et al (1997) Probing tumor microvascularity by measurement, analysis and display of contrast agent uptake kinetics. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:564–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen B-B, Shih TT-F (2014) DCE-MRI in hepatocellular carcinoma-clinical and therapeutic image biomarker. World J Gastroenterol 20:3125

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Taouli B, Johnson RS, Hajdu CH, Oei MT, Merad M et al (2013) Hepatocellular carcinoma: perfusion quantification with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Am J Roentgenol 201:795–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gill AB, Black RT, Bowden DJ, Priest AN, Graves MJ et al (2014) An investigation into the effects of temporal resolution on hepatic dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in volunteers and in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Phys Med Biol 59:3187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Orton MR, Miyazaki K, Koh DM, Collins DJ, Hawkes DJ et al (2009) Optimizing functional parameter accuracy for breath-hold DCE-MRI of liver tumours. Phys Med Biol 54:2197–2215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sahani DV, Holalkere NS, Mueller PR, Zhu AX (2007) Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: CT perfusion of liver and tumor tissue–initial experience. Radiology 243:736–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhu AX, Sahani DV, Duda DG, di Tomaso E, Ancukiewicz M et al (2009) Efficacy, safety, and potential biomarkers of sunitinib monotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 27:3027–3035

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hsu CY, Shen YC, Yu CW, Hsu C, Hu FC et al (2011) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers predict survival and response in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib and metronomic tegafur/uracil. J Hepatol 55:858–865

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jarnagin WR, Schwartz LH, Gultekin DH, Gönen M, Haviland D et al (2009) Regional chemotherapy for unresectable primary liver cancer: results of a phase II clinical trial and assessment of DCE-MRI as a biomarker of survival. Ann Oncol 20:1589–1595

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yopp AC, Schwartz LH, Kemeny N, Gultekin DH, Gonen M et al (2011) Antiangiogenic therapy for primary liver cancer: correlation of changes in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with tissue hypoxia markers and clinical response. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2192–2199

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tofts PS, Kermode AG (1991) Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 17:357–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tofts PS (1997) Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:91–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E et al (1999) Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:223–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hsu C, Yang TS, Huo TI, Hsieh RK, Yu CW et al (2012) Vandetanib in patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Hepatol 56:1097–1103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Materne R, Smith AM, Peeters F, Dehoux JP, Keyeux A et al (2002) Assessment of hepatic perfusion parameters with dynamic MRI. Magn Reson Med 47:135–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Annet L, Materne R, Danse E, Jamart J, Horsmans Y et al (2003) Hepatic flow parameters measured with MR imaging and Doppler US: correlations with degree of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Radiology 229:409–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hagiwara M, Rusinek H, Lee VS, Losada M, Bannan MA et al (2008) Advanced liver fibrosis: diagnosis with 3D whole-liver perfusion MR imaging–initial experience. Radiology 246:926–934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Patel J, Sigmund EE, Rusinek H, Oei M, Babb JS et al (2010) Diagnosis of cirrhosis with intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI alone and in combination: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:589–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Beers BE, Materne R, Annet L, Hermoye L, Sempoux C et al (2003) Capillarization of the sinusoids in liver fibrosis: noninvasive assessment with contrast-enhanced MRI in the rabbit. Magn Reson Med 49:692–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yankeelov TE, Rooney WD, Li X, Springer CS Jr (2003) Variation of the relaxographic “shutter-speed” for transcytolemmal water exchange affects the CR bolus-tracking curve shape. Magn Reson Med 50:1151–1169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Li X, Rooney WD, Springer CS Jr (2005) A unified magnetic resonance imaging pharmacokinetic theory: intravascular and extracellular contrast reagents. Magn Reson Med 54:1351–1359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Labadie C, Lee JH, Vetek G, Springer CS Jr (1994) Relaxographic imaging. J Magn Reson B 105:99–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Landis CS, Li X, Telang FW, Molina PE, Palyka I et al (1999) Equilibrium transcytolemmal water-exchange kinetics in skeletal muscle in vivo. Magn Reson Med 42:467–478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Landis CS, Li X, Telang FW, Coderre JA, Micca PL et al (2000) Determination of the MRI contrast agent concentration time course in vivo following bolus injection: effect of equilibrium transcytolemmal water exchange. Magn Reson Med 44:563–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Springer CS, Rooney WD, Li X (2002) The effects of equilibrium transcytolemmal water exchange on the determination of contrast reagent concentration in vivo. Magn Reson Med 47:422–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Quirk JD, Bretthorst GL, Duong TQ, Snyder AZ, Springer CS et al (2003) Equilibrium water exchange between the intra- and extracellular spaces of mammalian brain. Magn Reson Med 50:493–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhou R, Pickup S, Yankeelov TE, Springer CS Jr, Glickson JD (2004) Simultaneous measurement of arterial input function and tumor pharmacokinetics in mice by dynamic contrast enhanced imaging: effects of transcytolemmal water exchange. Magn Reson Med 52:248–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Li X, Huang W, Yankeelov TE, Tudorica A, Rooney WD et al (2005) Shutter-speed analysis of contrast reagent bolus-tracking data: preliminary observations in benign and malignant breast disease. Magn Reson Med 53:724–729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yankeelov TE, Rooney WD, Huang W, Dyke JP, Li X et al (2005) Evidence for shutter-speed variation in CR bolus-tracking studies of human pathology. NMR Biomed 18:173–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chang E, Li X, Jerosch-Herold M, Priest R, Enestvedt CK et al (2008) The Evaluation of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J Gastrointest Surg 12:166–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Li X, Springer CS, Jerosch-Herold M (2009) First-pass dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with extravasating contrast reagent: evidence for human myocardial capillary recruitment in adenosine-induced hyperemia. NMR Biomed 22:148–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Li X, Huang W, Morris EA, Tudorica LA, Seshan VE et al (2008) Dynamic NMR effects in breast cancer dynamic-contrast-enhanced MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:17937–17942

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Huang W, Li X, Morris EA, Tudorica LA, Seshan VE et al (2008) The magnetic resonance shutter speed discriminates vascular properties of malignant and benign breast tumors in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:17943–17948

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Li X, Priest RA, Woodward WJ, Tagge IJ, Siddiqui F et al (2013) Feasibility of shutter-speed DCE-MRI for improved prostate cancer detection. Magn Reson Med 69:171–178

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhang Y, Poirier-Quinot M, Springer CS Jr, Balschi JA (2011) Active trans-plasma membrane water cycling in yeast is revealed by NMR. Biophys J 101:2833–2842

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Springer CS Jr, Li X, Tudorica LA, Oh KY, Roy N et al (2014) Intratumor mapping of intracellular water lifetime: metabolic images of breast cancer? NMR Biomed 27:760–773

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. US Food and Drug Administration (2013) Public health advisory: gadolinium-containing contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) -Omniscan, OptiMARK, Magnevist, ProHance, and MultiHance. Department of Health and Human Services

  53. Jajamovich GH, Dyvorne H, Donnerhack C, Taouli B (2014) Quantitative liver MRI combining phase contrast imaging, elastography, and DWI: assessment of reproducibility and postprandial effect at 3.0 T. PLoS ONE 9:e97355

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Aronhime S, Calcagno C, Jajamovich GH, Dyvorne HA, Robson P et al (2014) DCE-MRI of the liver: effect of linear and nonlinear conversions on hepatic perfusion quantification and reproducibility. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:90–98

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Schabel MC, Parker DL (2008) Uncertainty and bias in contrast concentration measurements using spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences. Phys Med Biol 53:2345

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Pintaske J, Martirosian P, Graf H, Erb G, Lodemann KP et al (2006) Relaxivity of Gadopentetate Dimeglumine (Magnevist), Gadobutrol (Gadovist), and Gadobenate Dimeglumine (MultiHance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 41:213–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhang X, Petersen ET, Ghariq E, De Vis JB, Webb AG et al (2013) In vivo blood T(1) measurements at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T. Magn Reson Med 70:1082–1086

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Cuenod CA, Balvay D (2013) Perfusion and vascular permeability: basic concepts and measurement in DCE-CT and DCE-MRI. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:1187–1204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Huang W, Li X, Chen Y, Li X, Chang MC et al (2014) Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response: a multicenter data analysis challenge. Transl Oncol 7:153–166

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Altman DG (1990) Practical statistics for medical research. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  61. Okazumi S, Isono K, Enomoto K, Kikuchi T, Ozaki M et al (1992) Evaluation of liver tumors using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET: characterization of tumor and assessment of effect of treatment. J Nucl Med 33:333–339

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Papaetis GS, Syrigos KN (2009) Sunitinib: a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor in the era of molecular cancer therapies. BioDrugs 23:377–389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Galbraith SM, Lodge MA, Taylor NJ, Rustin GJ, Bentzen S et al (2002) Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in human muscle and tumours: comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis. NMR Biomed 15:132–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Choi JY, Lee JM, Sirlin CB (2014) CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: part I. Development, growth, and spread: key pathologic and imaging aspects. Radiology 272:635–654

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Asayama Y, Yoshimitsu K, Irie H, Nishihara Y, Aishima S et al (2007) Poorly versus moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma: vascularity assessment by computed tomographic hepatic angiography in correlation with histologically counted number of unpaired arteries. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:188–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. El-Assal ON, Yamanoi A, Soda Y, Yamaguchi M, Igarashi M et al (1998) Clinical significance of microvessel density and vascular endothelial growth factor expression in hepatocellular carcinoma and surrounding liver: possible involvement of vascular endothelial growth factor in the angiogenesis of cirrhotic liver. Hepatology 27:1554–1562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Tofts PS (2010) T1-weighted DCE imaging concepts: modelling, acquisition and analysis. MAGNETOM Flash: 30–39

Download references

Authors’ contributions

Protocol/project development: Jajamovich, Huang, Taouli. Data collection: Jajamovich, Besa, Dyvorne. Data analysis: Jajamovich, Besa, Li, Afzal, Dyvorne. Wrote the paper: Jajamovich, Taouli.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA

    Guido H. Jajamovich, Cecilia Besa, Hadrien A. Dyvorne & Bachir Taouli

  2. Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Wei Huang, Xin Li & Aneela Afzal

Authors
  1. Guido H. Jajamovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cecilia Besa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aneela Afzal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hadrien A. Dyvorne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bachir Taouli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bachir Taouli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jajamovich, G.H., Huang, W., Besa, C. et al. DCE-MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma: perfusion quantification with Tofts model versus shutter-speed model—initial experience. Magn Reson Mater Phy 29, 49–58 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-015-0513-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-015-0513-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation