European Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1089–1096 | Cite as

Is there any correlation between model-based perfusion parameters and model-free parameters of time-signal intensity curve on dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in breast cancer patients?

  • Boram Yi
  • Doo Kyoung Kang
  • Dukyong Yoon
  • Yong Sik Jung
  • Ku Sang Kim
  • Hyunee Yim
  • Tae Hee KimEmail author



To find out any correlation between dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) model-based parameters and model-free parameters, and evaluate correlations between perfusion parameters with histologic prognostic factors.


Model-based parameters (Ktrans, Kep and Ve) of 102 invasive ductal carcinomas were obtained using DCE-MRI and post-processing software. Correlations between model-based and model-free parameters and between perfusion parameters and histologic prognostic factors were analysed.


Mean Kep was significantly higher in cancers showing initial rapid enhancement (P = 0.002) and a delayed washout pattern (P = 0.001). Ve was significantly lower in cancers showing a delayed washout pattern (P = 0.015). Kep significantly correlated with time to peak enhancement (TTP) (ρ = −0.33, P < 0.001) and washout slope (ρ = 0.39, P = 0.002). Ve was significantly correlated with TTP (ρ = 0.33, P = 0.002). Mean Kep was higher in tumours with high nuclear grade (P = 0.017). Mean Ve was lower in tumours with high histologic grade (P = 0.005) and in tumours with negative oestrogen receptor status (P = 0.047). TTP was shorter in tumours with negative oestrogen receptor status (P = 0.037).


We could acquire general information about the tumour vascular physiology, interstitial space volume and pathologic prognostic factors by analyzing time-signal intensity curve without a complicated acquisition process for the model-based parameters.

Key points

• Kep mainly affected the initial and delayed curve pattern in time–signal intensity curve.

• There is significant correlation between model-based and model-free parameters.

• We acquired information about tumour vascular physiology, interstitial space volume and prognostic factors.


Breast Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI Model-based perfusion parameter Time–signal intensity curve Collinearity 



The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Tae Hee Kim. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding by a faculty research grant of Ajou University School of Medicine for 2011. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Methodology: prospective, observational, performed at one institution.


  1. 1.
    Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH (2008) Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology 246:116–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yankeelov TE, Gore JC (2009) Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology: theory, data acquisition, analysis, and examples. Curr Med Imaging Rev 3:91–107PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koo HR, Cho N, Song IC et al (2012) Correlation of perfusion parameters on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:145–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li SP, Padhani AR, Taylor NJ et al (2011) Vascular characterisation of triple negative breast carcinomas using dynamic MRI. Eur Radiol 21:1364–1373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El Khouli RH, Macura KJ, Kamel IR, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA (2011) 3-T dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: pharmacokinetic parameters versus conventional kinetic curve analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1498–1505PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tofts PS (1997) Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:91–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL 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 10:223–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benndorf M, Baltzer PA, Kaiser WA (2011) Assessing the degree of collinearity among the lesion features of the MRI BI-RADS lexicon. Eur J Radiol 80:e322–e324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veltman J, Stoutjesdijk M, Mann R et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: the value of pharmacokinetic parameters derived from fast dynamic imaging during initial enhancement in classifying lesions. Eur Radiol 18:1123–1133PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furman-Haran E, Schechtman E, Kelcz F, Kirshenbaum K, Degani H (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging reveals functional diversity of the vasculature in benign and malignant breast lesions. Cancer 104:708–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu Y, Jiang Q, Miao Y et al (2010) Quantitative analysis of clinical dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for evaluating treatment response in human breast cancer. Radiology 257:47–55PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li X, Arlinghaus LR, Ayers GD et al (2013) DCE-MRI analysis methods for predicting the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: pilot study findings. Magn Reson Med. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24782 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu HJ, Chen JH, Mehta RS, Nalcioglu O, Su MY (2007) MRI measurements of tumor size and pharmacokinetic parameters as early predictors of response in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:615–623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li SP, Taylor NJ, Makris A et al (2010) Primary human breast adenocarcinoma: imaging and histologic correlates of intrinsic susceptibility-weighted MR imaging before and during chemotherapy. Radiology 257:643–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller JC, Pien HH, Sahani D, Sorensen AG, Thrall JH (2005) Imaging angiogenesis: applications and potential for drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:172–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radjenovic A, Dall BJ, Ridgway JP, Smith MA (2008) Measurement of pharmacokinetic parameters in histologically graded invasive breast tumours using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Br J Radiol 81:120–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fluckiger JU, Schabel MC, Dibella EV (2012) The effect of temporal sampling on quantitative pharmacokinetic and three-time-point analysis of breast DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 30:934–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knopp MV, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Choyke PL (2003) Functional magnetic resonance imaging in oncology for diagnosis and therapy monitoring. Mol Cancer Ther 2:419–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Craciunescu OI, Blackwell KL, Jones EL et al (2009) DCE-MRI parameters have potential to predict response of locally advanced breast cancer patients to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and hyperthermia: a pilot study. Int J Hyperthermia 25:405–415PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baltzer PA, Vag T, Dietzel M et al (2010) Computer-aided interpretation of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging reflects histopathology of invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol 20:1563–1571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roberts C, Issa B, Stone A, Jackson A, Waterton JC, Parker GJ (2006) Comparative study into the robustness of compartmental modeling and model-free analysis in DCE-MRI studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 23:554–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thukral A, Thomasson DM, Chow CK et al (2007) Inflammatory breast cancer: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR in patients receiving bevacizumab–initial experience. Radiology 244:727–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yi A, Cho N, Im SA et al (2013) Survival outcomes of breast cancer patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: association with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with computer-aided evaluation. Radiology 268:662–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boram Yi
    • 1
  • Doo Kyoung Kang
    • 1
  • Dukyong Yoon
    • 2
  • Yong Sik Jung
    • 3
  • Ku Sang Kim
    • 3
  • Hyunee Yim
    • 4
  • Tae Hee Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAjou University School of MedicineSuwonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical InformaticsAjou University School of MedicineSuwonSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryAjou University School of MedicineSuwonSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of PathologyAjou University School of MedicineSuwonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations