Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for characterising nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison of semiquantitative and quantitative parameters and correlation with tumour stage

  • Head and Neck
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for characterising nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Methods

Forty-five newly diagnosed NPC patients were recruited. The initial enhancement rate (E R ), contrast transfer rate (k ep ), elimination rate (k el ), maximal enhancement (MaxEn) and initial area under the curve (iAUC) were calculated from semiquantitative analysis. The K trans (volume transfer constant), v e (volume fraction) and k ep were calculated from quantitative analysis. Student’s t-test was used to evaluate the differences among tumour stages. Pearson’s correlation between the two sets of k ep was performed.

Results

Comparing tumours of T1/2 stage (n = 18) and T3/4 stage (n = 27), MaxEn (P = 0.030) and iAUC (P = 0.039) were both significantly different; however, the iAUC was the only independent variable with 69.6 % sensitivity and 76.5 % specificity respectively; v e was also significantly different (P = 0.010) with 69.6 % sensitivity and 70.6 % specificity respectively. No significant difference was found among N stages. The two sets of k ep s were highly correlated (r = 0.809, P < 0.001). Forty-three patients had chemoradiation, one palliative chemotherapy and one radiotherapy only. In the four patients with poor outcome, k el, E R, MaxEn and iAUC tended to be higher.

Conclusions

Neovasculature in higher T stage NPC exhibits some parameters of increased permeability and perfusion. Thus, DCE-MRI may be helpful as an adjunctive technique in evaluating NPC.

Key Points

• The correct assessment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is important for planning treatment.

• Neovasculature in higher T stage NPC exhibits increased permeability and perfusion.

• Correlation between quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis validates the robustness of DCE-MRI.

• DCE-MRI may be helpful as an adjunctive parameter in evaluating NPC.

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. Agulnik M, Siu LL (2005) State-of-the-art management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: current and future directions. Br J Cancer 92:799–806

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chua DT, Sham JS, Wei WI, Ho WK, Au GK (2001) The predictive value of the 1997 American Joint Committee on Cancer stage classification in determining failure patterns in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer 92:2845–2855

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wei WI, Mok VW (2007) The management of neck metastases in nasopharyngeal cancer. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 15:99–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Flickinger FW, Allison JD, Sherry RM, Wright JC (1993) Differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses by time-intensity evaluation of contrast enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 11:617–620

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hazle JD, Jackson EF, Schomer DF, Leeds NE (1997) Dynamic imaging of intracranial lesions using fast spin-echo imaging: differentiation of brain tumors and treatment effects. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:1084–1093

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Esserman L, Hylton N, George T, Weidner N (1999) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to assess tumor histopathology and angiogenesis in breast carcinoma. Breast J 5:13–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Horsman A (1997) Dynamic MR imaging of invasive breast cancer: correlation with tumour grade and other histological factors. Br J Radiol 70:446–451

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tuncbilek N, Kaplan M, Altaner S et al (2009) Value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and correlation with tumor angiogenesis in bladder cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:949–955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee FK, King AD, Kam MK, Ma BB, Yeung DK (2011) Radiation injury of the parotid glands during treatment for head and neck cancer: assessment using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiat Res 175:291–296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Juan CJ, Chen CY, Jen YM et al (2009) Perfusion characteristics of late radiation injury of parotid glands: quantitative evaluation with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 19:94–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Semiz Oysu A, Ayanoglu E, Kodalli N, Oysu C, Uneri C, Erzen C (2005) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the differentiation of posttreatment fibrosis from recurrent carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Imaging 29:307–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee FK, King AD, Ma BB, Yeung DK (2011) Dynamic contrast enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for differential diagnosis in head and neck cancers. Eur J Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.089

  13. Edge SBB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (2010) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Treier R, Steingoetter A, Fried M, Schwizer W, Boesiger P (2007) Optimized and combined T1 and B1 mapping technique for fast and accurate T1 quantification in contrast-enhanced abdominal MRI. Magn Reson Med 57:568–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Workie DW, Dardzinski BJ, Graham TB, Laor T, Bommer WA, O’Brien KJ (2004) Quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the knee in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis based on pharmacokinetic modeling. Magn Reson Imaging 22:1201–1210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bisdas S, Seitz O, Middendorp M et al (2010) An exploratory pilot study into the association between microcirculatory parameters derived by MRI-based pharmacokinetic analysis and glucose utilization estimated by PET-CT imaging in head and neck cancer. Eur Radiol 20:2358–2366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Whitcher B, Schmid VJ (2011) Quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for oncology in R. J Stat Softw 44:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wang HZ, Riederer SJ, Lee JN (1987) Optimizing the precision in T1 relaxation estimation using limited flip angles. Magn Reson Med 5:399–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Investig Radiol 40:715–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Orton MR, d’Arcy JA, Walker-Samuel S et al (2008) Computationally efficient vascular input function models for quantitative kinetic modelling using DCE-MRI. Phys Med Biol 53:1225–1239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schmid VJ, Whitcher B, Padhani AR, Taylor NJ, Yang GZ (2006) Bayesian methods for pharmacokinetic models in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:1627–1636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 10:223–232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tuncbilek N, Tokatli F, Altaner S et al (2011) Prognostic value DCE-MRI parameters in predicting factor disease free survival and overall survival for breast cancer patients. Eur J Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.021

  24. Padhani AR, Gapinski CJ, Macvicar DA et al (2000) Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. Clin Radiol 55:99–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Yao WW, Zhang H, Ding B et al (2011) Rectal cancer: 3D dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI; correlation with microvascular density and clinicopathological features. Radiol Med 116:366–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Parker GJ, Roberts C, Macdonald A et al (2006) Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 56:993–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang Y, Huang W, Panicek DM, Schwartz LH, Koutcher JA (2008) Feasibility of using limited-population-based arterial input function for pharmacokinetic modeling of osteosarcoma dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data. Magn Reson Med 59:1183–1189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shukla-Dave A, Lee N, Stambuk H et al (2009) Average arterial input function for quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of neck nodal metastases. BMC Med Phys 9:4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Huang B, Chan T, Kwong DL, Chan WKS, Khong PL (2012) Investigation of intratumoral heterogeneity in nasopharyngeal carcinoma using 18F-FDG PET-CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:169–174

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dr. Whitcher is currently employed by Mango Solutions, London; Dr. Chan is currently employed by Philips Hong Kong. For the remaining authors, no conflicts of interest were declared. The study was partially funded by the Hong Kong University Grants Council Area of Excellence scheme (AoE/M-06/08).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Hong Kong, Room 406, Block K, Queen Mary Hospital, 102 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Bingsheng Huang, Chun-Sing Wong, Vincent Lai & Pek-Lan Khong

  2. Mango Solutions, London, UK

    Brandon Whitcher

  3. Department of Clinical Oncology, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

    Dora Lai-Wan Kwong

  4. Philips Healthcare, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Queenie Chan

Authors
  1. Bingsheng Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chun-Sing Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brandon Whitcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dora Lai-Wan Kwong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vincent Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Queenie Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pek-Lan Khong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pek-Lan Khong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huang, B., Wong, CS., Whitcher, B. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for characterising nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison of semiquantitative and quantitative parameters and correlation with tumour stage. Eur Radiol 23, 1495–1502 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2740-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2740-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation