Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging: state of the art and applications in whole-body imaging

  • Invited Review
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging is a non-invasive technique used for the evaluation of tissue vascularity features through imaging series acquisition after contrast medium administration. Over the years, the study technique and protocols have evolved, seeing a growing application of this method across different imaging modalities for the study of almost all body districts. The main and most consolidated current applications concern MRI imaging for the study of tumors, but an increasing number of studies are evaluating the use of this technique also for inflammatory pathologies and functional studies. Furthermore, the recent advent of artificial intelligence techniques is opening up a vast scenario for the analysis of quantitative information deriving from DCE. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive update on the techniques, protocols, and clinical applications – both established and emerging – of DCE in whole-body imaging.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fusco R, Petrillo A, Sansone M. Use of tracer kinetic models for selection of semi-quantitative features for DCE-MRI data classification. Appl Magn Reson. 2013;44:1311–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lassau N, Chami L, Benatsou B, Peronneau P, Roche A. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US) with quantification of tumor perfusion: a new diagnostic tool to evaluate the early effects of antiangiogenic treatment. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(Suppl 6):F89-98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee FK, King AD, Ma BB, Yeung DK. Dynamic contrast enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for differential diagnosis in head and neck cancers. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(4):784–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Petralia G, Summers PE, Agostini A, Ambrosini R, Cianci R, Cristel G, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in oncology: how we do it. Radiol Med. 2020;125(12):1288–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Totman JJ, O’Gorman RL, Kane PA, Karani JB. Comparison of the hepatic perfusion index measured with gadolinium-enhanced volumetric MRI in controls and in patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(926):105–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vordenbaumen S, Schleich C, Logters T, Sewerin P, Bleck E, Pauly T, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of metacarpophalangeal joints reflects histological signs of synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(5):452.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Wakefield JC, Downey K, Kyriazi S, deSouza NM. New MR techniques in gynecologic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):249–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yu T, Meng N, Chi D, Zhao Y, Wang Z, Luo Y. Diagnostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual or recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of 12 individual studies. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015;72(3):687–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang JL, Lee VS. Renal perfusion imaging by MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;52(2):369–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Widmann G, Henninger B, Kremser C, Jaschke W. MRI sequences in head & neck radiology - state of the art. Rofo. 2017;189(5):413–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leithner D, Moy L, Morris EA, Marino MA, Helbich TH, Pinker K. Abbreviated MRI of the breast: does it provide value? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;49(7):e85–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fabijanska A. A novel approach for quantification of time-intensity curves in a DCE-MRI image series with an application to prostate cancer. Comput Biol Med. 2016;73:119–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Petrillo A, Fusco R, Petrillo M, Granata V, Bianco F, Di Marzo M, et al. DCE-MRI time-intensity curve visual inspection to assess pathological response after neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Jpn J Radiol. 2018;36(10):611–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ng CS, Wei W, Bankson JA, Ravoori MK, Han L, Brammer DW, et al. Dependence of DCE-MRI biomarker values on analysis algorithm. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0130168.

  15. Kang SR, Kim HW, Kim HS. Evaluating the relationship between dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) parameters and pathological characteristics in breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;52(5):1360–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006;238(1):42–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwenzer NF, Kotter I, Henes JC, Schraml C, Fritz J, Claussen CD, et al. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the differential diagnosis of psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(3):715–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tekes A, Kamel I, Imam K, Szarf G, Schoenberg M, Nasir K, et al. Dynamic MRI of bladder cancer: evaluation of staging accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(1):121–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thng CH, Koh TS, Collins DJ, Koh DM. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging of the liver. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(13):1598–609.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tielbeek JA, Ziech ML, Li Z, Lavini C, Bipat S, Bemelman WA, et al. Evaluation of conventional, dynamic contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted MRI for quantitative Crohn’s disease assessment with histopathology of surgical specimens. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(3):619–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Turkoglu S, Kayan M. Differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian masses using multiparametric MRI. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020;101(3):147–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Knott KD, Seraphim A, Augusto JB, Xue H, Chacko L, Aung N, et al. The prognostic significance of quantitative myocardial perfusion: an artificial intelligence-based approach using perfusion mapping. Circulation. 2020;141(16):1282–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Donato H, Franca M, Candelaria I, Caseiro-Alves F. Liver MRI: From basic protocol to advanced techniques. Eur J Radiol. 2017;93:30–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nardone V, Reginelli A, Guida C, Belfiore MP, Biondi M, Mormile M, et al. Delta-radiomics increases multicentre reproducibility: a phantom study. Med Oncol. 2020;37(5):38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Filograna L, Lenkowicz J, Cellini F, Dinapoli N, Manfrida S, Magarelli N, et al. Identification of the most significant magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomic features in oncological patients with vertebral bone marrow metastatic disease: a feasibility study. Radiol Med. 2019;124(1):50–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grassi R, Miele V, Giovagnoni A. Artificial intelligence: a challenge for third millennium radiologist. Radiol Med. 2019;124(4):241–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Neri E, Coppola F, Miele V, Bibbolino C, Grassi R. Artificial intelligence: Who is responsible for the diagnosis? Radiol Med. 2020;125(6):517–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sourbron S, Ingrisch M, Siefert A, Reiser M, Herrmann K. Quantification of cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, and blood-brain-barrier leakage with DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62(1):205–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang J, Liu H, Tong H, Wang S, Yang Y, Liu G, et al. Clinical applications of contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI techniques in gliomas: recent advances and current challenges. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017;2017:7064120.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Okuchi S, Rojas-Garcia A, Ulyte A, Lopez I, Usinskiene J, Lewis M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI in stratifying gliomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med. 2019;8(12):5564–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Heye AK, Culling RD, Valdes Hernandez Mdel C, Thrippleton MJ, Wardlaw JM. Assessment of blood-brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. A systematic review. Neuroimage Clin. 2014;6:262-74.

  32. Gaudino S, Benenati M, Martucci M, Botto A, Infante A, Marrazzo A, et al. Investigating dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in posterior fossa tumors: differences and similarities with supratentorial tumors. Radiol Med. 2020;125(4):416–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Choi HS, Kim AH, Ahn SS, Shin NY, Kim J, Lee SK. Glioma grading capability: comparisons among parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and ADC value on DWI. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(3):487–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Arevalo-Perez J, Peck KK, Young RJ, Holodny AI, Karimi S, Lyo JK. Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion mri and diffusion-weighted imaging in grading of gliomas. J Neuroimaging. 2015;25(5):792–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Li X, Zhu Y, Kang H, Zhang Y, Liang H, Wang S, et al. Glioma grading by microvascular permeability parameters derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and intratumoral susceptibility signal on susceptibility weighted imaging. Cancer Imaging. 2015;15:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Santarosa C, Castellano A, Conte GM, Cadioli M, Iadanza A, Terreni MR, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging for glioma grading: Preliminary comparison of vessel compartment and permeability parameters using hotspot and histogram analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(6):1147–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jia Z, Geng D, Xie T, Zhang J, Liu Y. Quantitative analysis of neovascular permeability in glioma by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19(6):820–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Jung SC, Yeom JA, Kim JH, Ryoo I, Kim SC, Shin H, et al. Glioma: Application of histogram analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters from T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to tumor grading. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(6):1103–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Xie T, Chen X, Fang J, Kang H, Xue W, Tong H, et al. Textural features of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI derived model-free and model-based parameter maps in glioma grading. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47(4):1099–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Su CQ, Lu SS, Han QY, Zhou MD, Hong XN. Intergrating conventional MRI, texture analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and susceptibility weighted imaging for glioma grading. Acta Radiol. 2019;60(6):777–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK, et al. The 2016 world health organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):803–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ahn SS, Shin NY, Chang JH, Kim SH, Kim EH, Kim DW, et al. Prediction of methylguanine methyltransferase promoter methylation in glioblastoma using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance and diffusion tensor imaging. J Neurosurg. 2014;121(2):367–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Di N, Cheng W, Jiang X, Liu X, Zhou J, Xie Q, et al. Can dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI evaluate VEGF expression in brain glioma? An MRI-guided stereotactic biopsy study. J Neuroradiol. 2019;46(3):186–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jung BC, Arevalo-Perez J, Lyo JK, Holodny AI, Karimi S, Young RJ, et al. Comparison of glioblastomas and brain metastases using dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI. J Neuroimaging. 2016;26(2):240–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hatzoglou V, Tisnado J, Mehta A, Peck KK, Daras M, Omuro AM, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion for differentiating between melanoma and lung cancer brain metastases. Cancer Med. 2017;6(4):761–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhao J, Yang ZY, Luo BN, Yang JY, Chu JP. Quantitative Evaluation of Diffusion and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR in Tumor Parenchyma and Peritumoral Area for Distinction of Brain Tumors. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138573.

  47. Xi YB, Kang XW, Wang N, Liu TT, Zhu YQ, Cheng G, et al. Differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphoma from high-grade glioma and brain metastasis using arterial spin labeling and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2019;112:59–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Toh CH, Wei KC, Chang CN, Ng SH, Wong HF. Differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphomas and glioblastomas: comparisons of diagnostic performance of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging without and with contrast-leakage correction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(6):1145–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang HW, Lyu GW, He WJ, Lei Y, Lin F, Feng YN, et al. Differential diagnosis of central lymphoma and high-grade glioma: dynamic contrast-enhanced histogram. Acta Radiol. 2020;61(9):1221–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Xu W, Wang Q, Shao A, Xu B, Zhang J. The performance of MR perfusion-weighted imaging for the differentiation of high-grade glioma from primary central nervous system lymphoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173430.

  51. Murayama K, Nishiyama Y, Hirose Y, Abe M, Ohyu S, Ninomiya A, et al. Differentiating between central nervous system lymphoma and high-grade glioma using dynamic susceptibility contrast and dynamic contrast-enhanced mr imaging with histogram analysis. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2018;17(1):42–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hatzoglou V, Oh JH, Buck O, Lin X, Lee M, Shukla-Dave A, et al. Pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI biomarkers correlate with progression-free survival in primary central nervous system lymphoma. J Neurooncol. 2018;140(2):351–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Fu F, Sun X, Li Y, Liu Y, Shan Y, Ji N, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers predict chemotherapeutic responses and survival in primary central-nervous-system lymphoma. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(4):1863–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. van Dijken BRJ, van Laar PJ, Holtman GA, van der Hoorn A. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with high-grade glioma, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(10):4129–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Morabito R, Alafaci C, Pergolizzi S, Pontoriero A, Iati G, Bonanno L, et al. DCE and DSC perfusion MRI diagnostic accuracy in the follow-up of primary and metastatic intra-axial brain tumors treated by radiosurgery with cyberknife. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14(1):65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Bisdas S, Naegele T, Ritz R, Dimostheni A, Pfannenberg C, Reimold M, et al. Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(5):575–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Yun TJ, Park CK, Kim TM, Lee SH, Kim JH, Sohn CH, et al. Glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy: differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression with quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;274(3):830–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Thomas AA, Arevalo-Perez J, Kaley T, Lyo J, Peck KK, Shi W, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced T1 MRI perfusion differentiates pseudoprogression from recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2015;125(1):183–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Elshafeey N, Kotrotsou A, Hassan A, Elshafei N, Hassan I, Ahmed S, et al. Multicenter study demonstrates radiomic features derived from magnetic resonance perfusion images identify pseudoprogression in glioblastoma. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):3170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Nguyen TB, Cron GO, Mercier JF, Foottit C, Torres CH, Chakraborty S, et al. Preoperative prognostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-derived contrast transfer coefficient and plasma volume in patients with cerebral gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(1):63–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Kim HS, Kwon SL, Choi SH, Hwang I, Kim TM, Park CK, et al. Prognostication of anaplastic astrocytoma patients: application of contrast leakage information of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(4):2171–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Villringer K, Sanz Cuesta BE, Ostwaldt AC, Grittner U, Brunecker P, Khalil AA, et al. DCE-MRI blood-brain barrier assessment in acute ischemic stroke. Neurology. 2017;88(5):433–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Roh HG, Kim EY, Kim IS, Lee HJ, Park JJ, Lee SB, et al. A Novel collateral imaging method derived from time-resolved dynamic contrast-enhanced MR angiography in acute ischemic stroke: a pilot study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019;40(6):946–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Oh SS, Lee EH, Kim JH, Seo YB, Choo YJ, Park J, et al. The Use of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Evaluation of Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption in Traumatic Brain Injury: What Is the Evidence? Brain Sci. 2021;11(6).

  65. Lapointe E, Li DKB, Traboulsee AL, Rauscher A. What have we learned from perfusion MRI in multiple sclerosis? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(6):994–1000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Ingrisch M, Sourbron S, Morhard D, Ertl-Wagner B, Kumpfel T, Hohlfeld R, et al. Quantification of perfusion and permeability in multiple sclerosis: dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in 3D at 3T. Invest Radiol. 2012;47(4):252–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ingrisch M, Sourbron S, Herberich S, Schneider MJ, Kumpfel T, Hohlfeld R, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging suggests normal perfusion in normal-appearing white matter in multiple sclerosis. Invest Radiol. 2017;52(3):135–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Raja R, Rosenberg GA, Caprihan A. MRI measurements of Blood-Brain Barrier function in dementia: a review of recent studies. Neuropharmacology. 2018;134(Pt B):259–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. van de Haar HJ, Burgmans S, Jansen JF, van Osch MJ, van Buchem MA, Muller M, et al. Blood-brain barrier leakage in patients with early alzheimer disease. Radiology. 2016;281(2):527–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kim YS, Kim M, Choi SH, You SH, Yoo RE, Kang KM, et al. Altered vascular permeability in migraine-associated brain regions: evaluation with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Radiology. 2019;292(3):713–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Lian S, Zhang C, Chi J, Huang Y, Shi F, Xie C. Differentiation between nasopharyngeal carcinoma and lymphoma at the primary site using whole-tumor histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps. Radiol Med. 2020;125(7):647–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Martens RM, Stappen RV, Koopman T, Noij DP, Comans EF, Zwezerijnen GJ, et al. The Additional Value of Ultrafast DCE-MRI to DWI-MRI and 18F-FDG-PET to Detect Occult Primary Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(10).

  73. Park M, Kim J, Choi YS, Lee SK, Koh YW, Kim SH, et al. Application of dynamic contrast-enhanced mri parameters for differentiating squamous cell carcinoma and malignant lymphoma of the oropharynx. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(2):401–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Pietragalla M, Nardi C, Bonasera L, Mungai F, Taverna C, Novelli L, et al. The role of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhancement perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of salivary glands neoplasms. Radiol Med. 2020;125(9):851–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Mungai F, Verrone GB, Bonasera L, Bicci E, Pietragalla M, Nardi C, et al. Imaging biomarkers in the diagnosis of salivary gland tumors: the value of lesion/parenchyma ratio of perfusion-MR pharmacokinetic parameters. Radiol Med. 2021.

  76. King AD, Thoeny HC. Functional MRI for the prediction of treatment response in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: potential and limitations. Cancer Imaging. 2016;16(1):23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Noij DP, de Jong MC, Mulders LG, Marcus JT, de Bree R, Lavini C, et al. Contrast-enhanced perfusion magnetic resonance imaging for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2015;51(2):124–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Ng SH, Lin CY, Chan SC, Lin YC, Yen TC, Liao CT, et al. Clinical utility of multimodality imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI, and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the prediction of neck control in oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemoradiation. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115933.

  79. Chikui T, Kitamoto E, Kawano S, Sugiura T, Obara M, Simonetti AW, et al. Pharmacokinetic analysis based on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for evaluating tumor response to preoperative therapy for oral cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(3):589–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Wang P, Popovtzer A, Eisbruch A, Cao Y. An approach to identify, from DCE MRI, significant subvolumes of tumors related to outcomes in advanced head-and-neck cancer. Med Phys. 2012;39(8):5277–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Lee JY, Cheng KL, Lee JH, Choi YJ, Kim HW, Sung YS, et al. Detection of local recurrence in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma using voxel-based color maps of initial and final area under the curve values derived from DCE-MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019;40(8):1392–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Fogante M, Tagliati C, De Lisa M, Berardi R, Giuseppetti GM, Giovagnoni A. Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient of magnetic resonance imaging and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer. Radiol Med. 2019;124(7):581–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Travieso-Aja MDM, Maldonado-Saluzzi D, Naranjo-Santana P, Fernandez-Ruiz C, Severino-Rondon W, Rodriguez Rodriguez M, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM): a retrospective study involving 644 breast lesions. Radiol Med. 2019;124(10):1006–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Amato F, Bicchierai G, Cirone D, Depretto C, Di Naro F, Vanzi E, et al. Preoperative loco-regional staging of invasive lobular carcinoma with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM). Radiol Med. 2019;124(12):1229–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology. 1999;211(1):101–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Ahn HS, Jang M, Kim SM, La Yun B, Lee SH. Usefulness of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging with a dedicated axillary sequence for the detection of axillary lymph node metastasis in patients with early ductal breast cancer. Radiol Med. 2019;124(12):1220–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, Barclay J, Schwerin EH, Sickles EA, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(1):35–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Marino MA, Helbich T, Baltzer P, Pinker-Domenig K. Multiparametric MRI of the breast: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47(2):301–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Gao Y, Heller SL. Abbreviated and ultrafast breast mri in clinical practice. Radiographics. 2020;40(6):1507–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Lobbes MB, Prevos R, Smidt M, Tjan-Heijnen VC, van Goethem M, Schipper R, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing residual disease and pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(2):163–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Marinovich ML, Houssami N, Macaskill P, Sardanelli F, Irwig L, Mamounas EP, et al. Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(5):321–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Fowler AM, Mankoff DA, Joe BN. Imaging neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer. Radiology. 2017;285(2):358–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Ah-See ML, Makris A, Taylor NJ, Harrison M, Richman PI, Burcombe RJ, et al. Early changes in functional dynamic magnetic resonance imaging predict for pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(20):6580–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Dogan BE, Yuan Q, Bassett R, Guvenc I, Jackson EF, Cristofanilli M, et al. Comparing the performances of magnetic resonance imaging size vs pharmacokinetic parameters to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival in patients with breast cancer. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019;48(3):235–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, Bick U, Colin C, Cornford E, et al. Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(12):3669–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Chapman MC, Hayward JH, Woodard GA, Joe BN, Lee AY. The role of breast MRI in detecting asymptomatic recurrence after therapeutic mastectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(1):254–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Drew PJ, Kerin MJ, Turnbull LW, Imrie M, Carleton PJ, Fox JN, et al. Routine screening for local recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5(3):265–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Preda L, Villa G, Rizzo S, Bazzi L, Origgi D, Cassano E, et al. Magnetic resonance mammography in the evaluation of recurrence at the prior lumpectomy site after conservative surgery and radiotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(5):R53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Mirsadraee S, van Beek EJ. Functional imaging: computed tomography and MRI. Clin Chest Med. 2015;36(2):349-63, x.

  100. Ohno Y, Fujisawa Y, Yui M, Takenaka D, Koyama H, Sugihara N, et al. Solitary pulmonary nodule: Comparison of quantitative capability for differentiation and management among dynamic CE-perfusion MRI at 3T system, dynamic CE-perfusion ADCT and FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2019;115:22–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Contegiacomo A, Del Ciello A, Rella R, Attempati N, Coppolino D, Larici AR, et al. Pulmonary arteriovenous malformations: what the interventional radiologist needs to know. Radiol Med. 2019;124(10):973–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Agostini A, Borgheresi A, Mari A, Floridi C, Bruno F, Carotti M, et al. Dual-energy CT: theoretical principles and clinical applications. Radiol Med. 2019;124(12):1281–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Lee HY, Miura S, Yoshikawa T, Sugimura K. Contrast-enhanced CT- and MRI-based perfusion assessment for pulmonary diseases: basics and clinical applications. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2016;22(5):407–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Aziz M, Krishnam M, Madhuranthakam AJ, Rajiah P. Update on MR imaging of the pulmonary vasculature. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;35(8):1483–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Ohno Y, Yoshikawa T, Kishida Y, Seki S, Karabulut N. Unenhanced and contrast-enhanced MR angiography and perfusion imaging for suspected pulmonary thromboembolism. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):517–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Johns CS, Swift AJ, Hughes PJC, Ohno Y, Schiebler M, Wild JM. Pulmonary MR angiography and perfusion imaging-A review of methods and applications. Eur J Radiol. 2017;86:361–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Moher Alsady T, Kaireit TF, Behrendt L, Winther HB, Olsson KM, Wacker F, et al. Comparison of dual-energy computer tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for evaluating lung perfusion defects in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0251740.

  108. Ohno Y, Nishio M, Koyama H, Miura S, Yoshikawa T, Matsumoto S, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for pulmonary nodule assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(3):515–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Wang J, Wu N, Cham MD, Song Y. Tumor response in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: perfusion CT evaluation of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):1090–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Ohno Y, Nogami M, Higashino T, Takenaka D, Matsumoto S, Hatabu H, et al. Prognostic value of dynamic MR imaging for non-small-cell lung cancer patients after chemoradiotherapy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;21(6):775–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Hecht EM, Rosenkrantz A. Pulmonary MR angiography techniques and applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009;17(1):101–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Kluge A, Luboldt W, Bachmann G. Acute pulmonary embolism to the subsegmental level: diagnostic accuracy of three MRI techniques compared with 16-MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(1):W7-14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van' t Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):213-24.

  114. Pierpaolo P, Rolf S, Manuel BP, Davide C, Dresselaers T, Claus P, et al. Left ventricular global myocardial strain assessment: Are CMR feature-tracking algorithms useful in the clinical setting? Radiol Med. 2020;125(5):444–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Pradella S, Grazzini G, De Amicis C, Letteriello M, Acquafresca M, Miele V. Cardiac magnetic resonance in hypertrophic and dilated cardiomyopathies. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1056–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Palumbo P, Cannizzaro E, Di Cesare A, Bruno F, Schicchi N, Giovagnoni A, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance in arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathies. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1087–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Palmisano A, Vignale D, Benedetti G, Del Maschio A, De Cobelli F, Esposito A. Late iodine enhancement cardiac computed tomography for detection of myocardial scars: impact of experience in the clinical practice. Radiol Med. 2020;125(2):128–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Agliata G, Schicchi N, Agostini A, Fogante M, Mari A, Maggi S, et al. Radiation exposure related to cardiovascular CT examination: comparison between conventional 64-MDCT and third-generation dual-source MDCT. Radiol Med. 2019;124(8):753–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. De Rubeis G, Marchitelli L, Spano G, Catapano F, Cilia F, Galea N, et al. Radiological outpatient’ visits to avoid inappropriate cardiac CT examinations: an 8-year experience report. Radiol Med. 2021;126(2):214–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Seker M. Prevalence and morphologic features of dual left anterior descending artery subtypes in coronary CT angiography. Radiol Med. 2020;125(3):247–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Takehara Y. 4D Flow when and how? Radiol Med. 2020;125(9):838–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Marano R, Rovere G, Savino G, Flammia FC, Carafa MRP, Steri L, et al. CCTA in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1102–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Ippolito D, Riva L, Talei Franzesi CR, Cangiotti C, De Vito A, Di Gennaro F, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm in an assessment of coronary artery in comparison with standard hybrid-Iterative reconstruction algorithm: dose reduction and image quality. Radiol Med. 2019;124(5):350–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Liguori C, Farina D, Vaccher F, Ferrandino G, Bellini D, Carbone I. Myocarditis: imaging up to date. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1124–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Alitto AR, Chiesa S, Franco P, Fiore M, Marino L, Borghetti P, et al. PAIDEIA: pacemaker and implanted cardioverter defibrillator management in radiation therapy-a survey by the Young Group of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO). Radiol Med. 2020;125(3):329–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Galea N, Polizzi G, Gatti M, Cundari G, Figuera M, Faletti R. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in restrictive cardiomyopathies. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1072–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Ciancarella P, Ciliberti P, Santangelo TP, Secchi F, Stagnaro N, Secinaro A. Noninvasive imaging of congenital cardiovascular defects. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1167–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Daghighi S, Chan A, Kiani Nazarlou A, Hasan Z, Halimi M, Akbarzadeh F, et al. Clinical and histopathological outcome of cervical and chest MRI involving non-MRI-conditional cardiac pacemakers: a study using sheep models. Radiol Med. 2020;125(8):706–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. La Grutta L, Toia P, Grassedonio E, Pasta S, Albano D, Agnello F, et al. TAVI imaging: over the echocardiography. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1148–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Valente T, Pignatiello M, Sica G, Bocchini G, Rea G, Cappabianca S, et al. Hemopericardium in the acute clinical setting: Are we ready for a tailored management approach on the basis of MDCT findings? Radiol Med. 2020.

  131. Guerrini L, Mazzocchi S, Giomi A, Milli M, Carpi R. An operational approach to the execution of MR examinations in patients with CIED. Radiol Med. 2020;125(12):1311–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. van Assen M, Muscogiuri G, Caruso D, Lee SJ, Laghi A, De Cecco CN. Artificial intelligence in cardiac radiology. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1186–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Buffa V, Di Renzi P. CMR in the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1114–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Centonze M, Steidler S, Casagranda G, Alfonsi U, Spagnolli F, Rozzanigo U, et al. Cardiac-CT and cardiac-MR cost-effectiveness: a literature review. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1200–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Di Cesare E, Carerj S, Palmisano A, Carerj ML, Catapano F, Vignale D, et al. Multimodality imaging in chronic heart failure. Radiol Med. 2021;126(2):231–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Li M, Zhou T, Yang LF, Peng ZH, Ding J, Sun G. Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial magnetic resonance perfusion to diagnose ischemic stenosis with fractional flow reserve as reference: systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(11):1098–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Rovere G, Meduri A, Savino G, Flammia FC, Lo Piccolo F, Carafa MRP, et al. Practical instructions for using drugs in CT and MR cardiac imaging. Radiol Med. 2021;126(3):356–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Seitun S, Clemente A, Maffei E, Toia P, La Grutta L, Cademartiri F. Prognostic value of cardiac CT. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1135–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Esposito A, Gallone G, Palmisano A, Marchitelli L, Catapano F, Francone M. The current landscape of imaging recommendations in cardiovascular clinical guidelines: toward an imaging-guided precision medicine. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1013–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. Palumbo P, Cannizzaro E, Bruno F, Schicchi N, Fogante M, Agostini A, et al. Coronary artery disease (CAD) extension-derived risk stratification for asymptomatic diabetic patients: usefulness of low-dose coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in detecting high-risk profile patients. Radiol Med. 2020;125(12):1249–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Pelgrim GJ, Handayani A, Dijkstra H, Prakken NH, Slart RH, Oudkerk M, et al. Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion with Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Imaging in MRI and CT: Theoretical Models and Current Implementation. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:1734190.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. van Assen M, Muscogiuri G, Caruso D, Lee SJ, Laghi A, De Cecco CN. Artificial intelligence in cardiac radiology. La radiologia medica. 2020;125(11):1186–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Russo V, Lovato L, Ligabue G. Cardiac MRI: technical basis. Radiol Med. 2020;125(11):1040–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Nagel E, Greenwood JP, McCann GP, Bettencourt N, Shah AM, Hussain ST, et al. Magnetic resonance perfusion or fractional flow reserve in coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(25):2418–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Marcos-Garces V, Gavara J, Monmeneu JV, Lopez-Lereu MP, Bosch MJ, Merlos P, et al. Vasodilator stress CMR and all-cause mortality in stable ischemic heart disease: a large retrospective registry. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13(8):1674–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Sammut EC, Villa ADM, Di Giovine G, Dancy L, Bosio F, Gibbs T, et al. Prognostic value of quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(5):686–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Schicchi N, Fogante M, Esposto Pirani P, Agliata G, Basile MC, Oliva M, et al. Third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT in pediatric congenital heart disease patients: state-of-the-art. Radiol Med. 2019;124(12):1238–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Schicchi N, Mari A, Fogante M, Esposto Pirani P, Agliata G, Tosi N, et al. In vivo radiation dosimetry and image quality of turbo-flash and retrospective dual-source CT coronary angiography. Radiol Med. 2020;125(2):117–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Tanabe Y, Kurata A, Matsuda T, Yoshida K, Baruah D, Kido T, et al. Computed tomographic evaluation of myocardial ischemia. Jpn J Radiol. 2020;38(5):411–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Takx RA, Blomberg BA, El Aidi H, Habets J, de Jong PA, Nagel E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging compared to invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(1).

  151. Chen MY, Rochitte CE, Arbab-Zadeh A, Dewey M, George RT, Miller JM, et al. Prognostic value of combined CT angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging versus invasive coronary angiography and nuclear stress perfusion imaging in the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events: the CORE320 multicenter study. Radiology. 2017;284(1):55–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Grandhi GR, Batlle JC, Maroules CD, Janowitz W, Pena CS, Ziffer JA, et al. Combined stress myocardial CT perfusion and coronary CT angiography as a feasible strategy among patients presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2021;15(2):129–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Sahani DV, Holalkere NS, Mueller PR, Zhu AX. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: CT perfusion of liver and tumor tissue–initial experience. Radiology. 2007;243(3):736–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Hu HT, Shan QY, Chen SL, Li B, Feng ST, Xu EJ, et al. CT-based radiomics for preoperative prediction of early recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: technical reproducibility of acquisition and scanners. Radiol Med. 2020;125(8):697–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Miles KA, Lee TY, Goh V, Klotz E, Cuenod C, Bisdas S, et al. Current status and guidelines for the assessment of tumour vascular support with dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(7):1430–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Miles KA. Perfusion CT for the assessment of tumour vascularity: which protocol? Br J Radiol. 2003;76 Spec No 1:S36-42.

  157. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Yu MH, Hur BY, Grimm R, Sourbron S, et al. Simultaneous evaluation of perfusion and morphology using GRASP MRI in hepatic fibrosis. Eur Radiol. 2021.

  158. Kajita K, Goshima S, Noda Y, Kawada H, Kawai N, Okuaki T, et al. Thin-slice free-breathing pseudo-golden-angle radial stack-of-stars with gating and tracking T1-weighted acquisition: an efficient gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatobiliary-phase imaging alternative for patients with unstable breath holding. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2019;18(1):4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Blomley MJ, Coulden R, Dawson P, Kormano M, Donlan P, Bufkin C, et al. Liver perfusion studied with ultrafast CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1995;19(3):424–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Miles KA, Charnsangavej C, Lee FT, Fishman EK, Horton K, Lee TY. Application of CT in the investigation of angiogenesis in oncology. Acad Radiol. 2000;7(10):840–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Ng CS, Chandler AG, Wei W, Anderson EF, Herron DH, Kurzrock R, et al. Effect of dual vascular input functions on CT perfusion parameter values and reproducibility in liver tumors and normal liver. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2012;36(4):388–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Petralia G, Bonello L, Viotti S, Preda L, d’Andrea G, Bellomi M. CT perfusion in oncology: how to do it. Cancer Imaging. 2010;10:8–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Bottari A, Silipigni S, Carerj ML, Cattafi A, Maimone S, Marino MA, et al. Dual-source dual-energy CT in the evaluation of hepatic fractional extracellular space in cirrhosis. Radiol Med. 2020;125(1):7–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Mathew RP, Sam M, Raubenheimer M, Patel V, Low G. Hepatic hemangiomas: the various imaging avatars and its mimickers. Radiol Med. 2020;125(9):801–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Shin N, Choi JA, Choi JM, Cho ES, Kim JH, Chung JJ, et al. Sclerotic changes of cavernous hemangioma in the cirrhotic liver: long-term follow-up using dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Radiol Med. 2020;125(12):1225–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Kim KW, Lee JM, Klotz E, Park HS, Lee DH, Kim JY, et al. Quantitative CT color mapping of the arterial enhancement fraction of the liver to detect hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology. 2009;250(2):425–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Li JP, Feng GL, Li DQ, Wang HB, Zhao DL, Wan Y, et al. Detection and differentiation of early hepatocellular carcinoma from cirrhosis using CT perfusion in a rat liver model. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2016;15(6):612–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Calandri M, Ruggeri V, Carucci P, Mirabella S, Veltri A, Fonio P, et al. Thermal ablation with fusion imaging guidance of hepatocellular carcinoma without conspicuity on conventional or contrast-enhanced US: surrounding anatomical landmarks matter. Radiol Med. 2019;124(10):1043–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Esposito A, Buscarino V, Raciti D, Casiraghi E, Manini M, Biondetti P, et al. Characterization of liver nodules in patients with chronic liver disease by MRI: performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS vol 2018) scale and its comparison with the Likert scale. Radiol Med. 2020;125(1):15–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Gatti M, Calandri M, Bergamasco L, Darvizeh F, Grazioli L, Inchingolo R, et al. Characterization of the arterial enhancement pattern of focal liver lesions by multiple arterial phase magnetic resonance imaging: comparison between hepatocellular carcinoma and focal nodular hyperplasia. Radiol Med. 2020;125(4):348–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Tsushima Y, Blomley MJ, Yokoyama H, Kusano S, Endo K. Does the presence of distant and local malignancy alter parenchymal perfusion in apparently disease-free areas of the liver? Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46(10):2113–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Ippolito D, Pecorelli A, Querques G, Drago SG, Maino C, Franzesi CT, et al. Dynamic computed tomography perfusion imaging: complementary diagnostic tool in hepatocellular carcinoma assessment from diagnosis to treatment follow-up. Acad Radiol. 2019;26(12):1675–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Borgheresi A, Gonzalez-Aguirre A, Brown KT, Getrajdman GI, Erinjeri JP, Covey A, et al. Does enhancement or perfusion on preprocedure CT predict outcomes after embolization of hepatocellular carcinoma? Acad Radiol. 2018;25(12):1588–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  174. Miles KA, Leggett DA, Kelley BB, Hayball MP, Sinnatamby R, Bunce I. In vivo assessment of neovascularization of liver metastases using perfusion CT. Br J Radiol. 1998;71(843):276–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Kim DH, Kim SH, Im SA, Han SW, Goo JM, Willmann JK, et al. Intermodality comparison between 3D perfusion CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for predicting early tumor response in patients with liver metastasis after chemotherapy: preliminary results of a prospective study. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(11):3542–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Ng CS, Charnsangavej C, Wei W, Yao JC. Perfusion CT findings in patients with metastatic carcinoid tumors undergoing bevacizumab and interferon therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3):569–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Ravanelli M, Agazzi GM, Tononcelli E, Roca E, Cabassa P, Baiocchi G, et al. Texture features of colorectal liver metastases on pretreatment contrast-enhanced CT may predict response and prognosis in patients treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy: a pilot study including comparison with standard chemotherapy. Radiol Med. 2019;124(9):877–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Mahnken AH, Klotz E, Schreiber S, Bruners P, Isfort P, Gunther RW, et al. Volumetric arterial enhancement fraction predicts tumor recurrence after hepatic radiofrequency ablation of liver metastases: initial results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(5):W573-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Miles KA, Hayball MP, Dixon AK. Functional images of hepatic perfusion obtained with dynamic CT. Radiology. 1993;188(2):405–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Hagiwara M, Rusinek H, Lee VS, Losada M, Bannan MA, Krinsky GA, et al. Advanced liver fibrosis: diagnosis with 3D whole-liver perfusion MR imaging–initial experience. Radiology. 2008;246(3):926–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Cappabianca S, Iaselli F, Reginelli A, D’Andrea A, Urraro F, Grassi R, et al. Value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the characterization of complex adnexal masses. Tumori. 2013;99(2):210–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Cuenod CA, Fournier L, Balvay D, Guinebretiere JM. Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging. 2006;31(2):188–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Iacobellis F, Berritto D, Somma F, Cavaliere C, Corona M, Cozzolino S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging: a new tool for diagnosis of acute ischemic colitis? World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(13):1496–501.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. Pellino G, Gallo G, Pallante P, Capasso R, De Stefano A, Maretto I, et al. Noninvasive biomarkers of colorectal cancer: role in diagnosis and personalised treatment perspectives. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018;2018:2397863.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. Reginelli A, Mandato Y, Solazzo A, Berritto D, Iacobellis F, Grassi R. Errors in the radiological evaluation of the alimentary tract: part II. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2012;33(4):308–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Somma F, Faggian A, Serra N, Gatta G, Iacobellis F, Berritto D, et al. Bowel intussusceptions in adults: the role of imaging. Radiol Med. 2015;120(1):105–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Belfiore G, Belfiore MP, Reginelli A, Capasso R, Romano F, Ianniello GP, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy alone versus irreversible electroporation followed by chemotherapy on survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Med Oncol. 2017;34(3):38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  188. Scialpi M, Reginelli A, D’Andrea A, Gravante S, Falcone G, Baccari P, et al. Pancreatic tumors imaging: An update. Int J Surg. 2016;28(Suppl 1):S142-55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Hu R, Yang H, Chen Y, Zhou T, Zhang J, Chen TW, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced mri for measuring pancreatic perfusion in acute pancreatitis: a preliminary study. Acad Radiol. 2019;26(12):1641–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Eriksen RO, Strauch LS, Sandgaard M, Kristensen TS, Nielsen MB, Lauridsen CA. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer. Diagnostics (Basel). 2016;6(3).

  191. Reginelli A, Vanzulli A, Sgrazzutti C, Caschera L, Serra N, Raucci A, et al. Vascular microinvasion from hepatocellular carcinoma: CT findings and pathologic correlation for the best therapeutic strategies. Med Oncol. 2017;34(5):93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Scialpi M, Palumbo B, Pierotti L, Gravante S, Piunno A, Rebonato A, et al. Detection and characterization of focal liver lesions by split-bolus multidetector-row CT: diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose in oncologic patients. Anticancer Res. 2014;34(8):4335–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Kandel S, Kloeters C, Meyer H, Hein P, Hilbig A, Rogalla P. Whole-organ perfusion of the pancreas using dynamic volume CT in patients with primary pancreas carcinoma: acquisition technique, post-processing and initial results. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(11):2641–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Oostendorp M, Post MJ, Backes WH. Vessel growth and function: depiction with contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2009;251(2):317–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Morisaka H, Sou H, Muhi A, Kimura K, et al. Detection of pancreatic carcinoma and liver metastases with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: comparison with contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2011;260(2):446–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Granata V, Fusco R, Sansone M, Grassi R, Maio F, Palaia R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of pancreatic cancer with quantitative parameter extraction by means of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion kurtosis imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2020;13:1756284819885052.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  197. Srisajjakul S, Prapaisilp P, Bangchokdee S. CT and MR features that can help to differentiate between focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Radiol Med. 2020;125(4):356–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Bali MA, Metens T, Denolin V, Delhaye M, Demetter P, Closset J, et al. Tumoral and nontumoral pancreas: correlation between quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and histopathologic parameters. Radiology. 2011;261(2):456–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Coenegrachts K, Van Steenbergen W, De Keyzer F, Vanbeckevoort D, Bielen D, Chen F, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the pancreas: initial results in healthy volunteers and patients with chronic pancreatitis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20(6):990–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Zhang XM, Shi H, Parker L, Dohke M, Holland GA, Mitchell DG. Suspected early or mild chronic pancreatitis: enhancement patterns on gadolinium chelate dynamic MRI. Magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;17(1):86-94.

  201. Akisik MF, Sandrasegaran K, Bu G, Lin C, Hutchins GD, Chiorean EG. Pancreatic cancer: utility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in assessment of antiangiogenic therapy. Radiology. 2010;256(2):441–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Grazzini G, Danti G, Cozzi D, Lanzetta MM, Addeo G, Falchini M, et al. Diagnostic imaging of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours (GI-NETs): relationship between MDCT features and 2010 WHO classification. Radiol Med. 2019;124(2):94–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. Joo I, Lee JM, Han JK, Yang HK, Lee HJ, Choi BI. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of gastric cancer: Correlation of the perfusion parameters with pathological prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(6):1608–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  204. Ma L, Xu X, Zhang M, Zheng S, Zhang B, Zhang W, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of gastric cancer: Correlations of the pharmacokinetic parameters with histological type, Lauren classification, and angiogenesis. Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;37:27–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Tang L, Wang XJ, Baba H, Giganti F. Gastric cancer and image-derived quantitative parameters: Part 2-a critical review of DCE-MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT findings. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(1):247–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. Zhu YJ, Li Y, Jiang J, Zhang W, Xue LY, Zhou AP, et al. Predictive value of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric cancer. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2019;41(10):765–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Correale P, Botta C, Staropoli N, Nardone V, Pastina P, Ulivieri C, et al. Systemic inflammatory status predict the outcome of k-RAS WT metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving the thymidylate synthase poly-epitope-peptide anticancer vaccine. Oncotarget. 2018;9(29):20539–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  208. Zhu Y, Zhou Y, Zhang W, Xue L, Li Y, Jiang J, et al. Value of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in predicting extramural venous invasion in locally advanced gastric cancer and prognostic significance. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021;11(1):328–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  209. Intven M, Reerink O, Philippens ME. Dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging for rectal cancer response assessment after neo-adjuvant chemoradiation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(6):1646–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. Petrillo A, Fusco R, Petrillo M, Granata V, Sansone M, Avallone A, et al. Standardized Index of Shape (SIS): a quantitative DCE-MRI parameter to discriminate responders by non-responders after neoadjuvant therapy in LARC. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(7):1935–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  211. Petrillo M, Fusco R, Catalano O, Sansone M, Avallone A, Delrio P, et al. MRI for Assessing Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Using DCE-MR and DW-MR Data Sets: A Preliminary Report. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:514740.

  212. Fornell-Perez R, Vivas-Escalona V, Aranda-Sanchez J, Gonzalez-Dominguez MC, Rubio-Garcia J, Aleman-Flores P, et al. Primary and post-chemoradiotherapy MRI detection of extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer: the role of diffusion-weighted imaging. Radiol Med. 2020;125(6):522–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  213. Ciolina M, Caruso D, De Santis D, Zerunian M, Rengo M, Alfieri N, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in locally advanced rectal cancer: role of perfusion parameters in the assessment of response to treatment. Radiol Med. 2019;124(5):331–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  214. Kim SH, Lee JM, Gupta SN, Han JK, Choi BI. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to evaluate the therapeutic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40(3):730–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. Tong T, Sun Y, Gollub MJ, Peng W, Cai S, Zhang Z, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: Use in predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(3):673–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  216. Boldrini L, Cusumano D, Chiloiro G, Casa C, Masciocchi C, Lenkowicz J, et al. Delta radiomics for rectal cancer response prediction with hybrid 0.35 T magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT): a hypothesis-generating study for an innovative personalized medicine approach. Radiol Med. 2019;124(2):145-53.

  217. Armbruster M, D’Anastasi M, Holzner V, Kreis ME, Dietrich O, Brandlhuber B, et al. Improved detection of a tumorous involvement of the mesorectal fascia and locoregional lymph nodes in locally advanced rectal cancer using DCE-MRI. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018;33(7):901–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  218. Kim YE, Lim JS, Choi J, Kim D, Myoung S, Kim MJ, et al. Perfusion parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with rectal cancer: correlation with microvascular density and vascular endothelial growth factor expression. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(6):878–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  219. Lollert A, Junginger T, Schimanski CC, Biesterfeld S, Gockel I, Duber C, et al. Rectal cancer: dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI correlates with lymph node status and epidermal growth factor receptor expression. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39(6):1436–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. Shen FU, Lu J, Chen L, Wang Z, Chen Y. Diagnostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer and its correlation with tumor differentiation. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016;4(4):500–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  221. Yao WW, Zhang H, Ding B, Fu T, Jia H, Pang L, et al. Rectal cancer: 3D dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI; correlation with microvascular density and clinicopathological features. Radiol Med. 2011;116(3):366–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  222. Yeo DM, Oh SN, Jung CK, Lee MA, Oh ST, Rha SE, et al. Correlation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion parameters with angiogenesis and biologic aggressiveness of rectal cancer: Preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(2):474–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  223. Lassau N, Chami L, Koscielny S, Chebil M, Massard C, Benatsou B, et al. Quantitative functional imaging by dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US) in GIST patients treated with masatinib. Invest New Drugs. 2012;30(2):765–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  224. Brillantino A, Iacobellis F, Reginelli A, Monaco L, Sodano B, Tufano G, et al. Preoperative assessment of simple and complex anorectal fistulas: Tridimensional endoanal ultrasound? Magnetic resonance? Both? Radiol Med. 2019;124(5):339–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  225. Masselli G, De Vincentiis C, Aloi M, Guida M, Cao R, Cartocci G, et al. Detection of Crohn’s disease with diffusion images versus contrast-enhanced images in pediatric using MR enterography with histopathological correlation. Radiol Med. 2019;124(12):1306–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  226. Vieujean S, Coibion C, Seidel L, Louis E, Meunier P. Magnetic resonance enterography perfusion parameters reveal complex changes in affected and unaffected segments in Crohn’s disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2020;55(9):1041–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. Wu YC, Xiao ZB, Lin XH, Zheng XY, Cao DR, Zhang ZS. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging in the activity staging of terminal ileum Crohn’s disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(39):6057–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  228. Del Vescovo R, Pisanti F, Russo V, Battisti S, Cazzato RL, D’Agostino F, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR evaluation of prostate cancer before and after endorectal high-intensity focused ultrasound. Radiol Med. 2013;118(5):851–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  229. Lee S, Choi YH, Cho YJ, Cheon JE, Moon JS, Kang GH, et al. Quantitative evaluation of Crohn’s disease using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in children and young adults. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(6):3168–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  230. Florie J, Wasser MN, Arts-Cieslik K, Akkerman EM, Siersema PD, Stoker J. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the bowel wall for assessment of disease activity in Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(5):1384–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  231. Bhatnagar G, Dikaios N, Prezzi D, Vega R, Halligan S, Taylor SA. Changes in dynamic contrast-enhanced pharmacokinetic and diffusion-weighted imaging parameters reflect response to anti-TNF therapy in Crohn’s disease. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1055):20150547.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  232. Zhu J, Zhang F, Zhou J, Li H. Assessment of therapeutic response in Crohn's disease using quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) parameters: A preliminary study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(32):e7759.

  233. Saevik F, Nylund K, Hausken T, Odegaard S, Gilja OH. Bowel perfusion measured with dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound predicts treatment outcome in patients with Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(11):2029–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  234. Li HH, Zhu H, Yue L, Fu Y, Grimm R, Stemmer A, et al. Feasibility of free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of gastric cancer using a golden-angle radial stack-of-stars VIBE sequence: comparison with the conventional contrast-enhanced breath-hold 3D VIBE sequence. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(5):1891–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  235. Zhang A, Song J, Ma Z, Chen T. Combined dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging to predict neoadjuvant chemotherapy effect in FIGO stage IB2-IIA2 cervical cancers. Radiol Med. 2020;125(12):1233–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  236. De Piano F, Buscarino V, Maresca D, Maisonneuve P, Aletti G, Lazzari R, et al. Do DWI and quantitative DCE perfusion MR have a prognostic value in high-grade serous ovarian cancer? Radiol Med. 2019;124(12):1315–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  237. Li HM, Qiang JW, Ma FH, Zhao SH. The value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in characterizing complex ovarian tumors. J Ovarian Res. 2017;10(1):4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  238. Sala E, Rockall A, Rangarajan D, Kubik-Huch RA. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the female pelvis. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(3):367–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  239. Du L, Li X, Qiu X, Liu X, Wang Y, Yu Y. Application of FLASH-3D dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1066):20160268.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  240. Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, Margariti PA, Testa A, Zannoni GF, et al. Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology. 2004;231(2):372–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  241. Lin G, Huang YT, Chao A, Lin YC, Yang LY, Wu RC, et al. Endometrial cancer with cervical stromal invasion: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging at 3T. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):1867–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  242. Ippolito D, Minutolo O, Cadonici A, Talei Franzesi C, Bonaffini P, Perego P, et al. Endometrial cancer: diagnostic value of quantitative measurements of microvascular changes with DCE-MR imaging. MAGMA. 2014;27(6):531–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  243. Jalaguier-Coudray A, Villard-Mahjoub R, Delouche A, Delarbre B, Lambaudie E, Houvenaeghel G, et al. Value of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the detection of pathologic complete response in cervical cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a retrospective observational study. Radiology. 2017;284(2):432–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  244. Dappa E, Elger T, Hasenburg A, Duber C, Battista MJ, Hotker AM. The value of advanced MRI techniques in the assessment of cervical cancer: a review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8(5):471–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  245. Zhang Z, Wang Z, Zhao R. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of advanced cervical carcinoma: the advantage of perfusion parameters from the peripheral region in predicting the early response to radiotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(7):1342–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  246. Ciolina M, Vinci V, Villani L, Gigli S, Saldari M, Panici PB, et al. Texture analysis versus conventional MRI prognostic factors in predicting tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced cancer of the uterine cervix. Radiol Med. 2019;124(10):955–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  247. Albano D, Benenati M, Bruno A, Bruno F, Calandri M, Caruso D, et al. Imaging side effects and complications of chemotherapy and radiation therapy: a pictorial review from head to toe. Insights Imaging. 2021;12(1):76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  248. Messina C, Bignone R, Bruno A, Bruno A, Bruno F, Calandri M, et al. Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Oncology: An Update. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(6).

  249. Hameeduddin A, Sahdev A. Diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in assessing response and recurrent disease in gynaecological malignancies. Cancer Imaging. 2015;15:3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  250. Cosgrove D, Lassau N. Imaging of perfusion using ultrasound. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(Suppl 1):S65-85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  251. Hudson JM, Karshafian R, Burns PN. Quantification of flow using ultrasound and microbubbles: a disruption replenishment model based on physical principles. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35(12):2007–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  252. Lamuraglia M, Escudier B, Chami L, Schwartz B, Leclere J, Roche A, et al. To predict progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic renal cancer treated with sorafenib: pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(15):2472–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  253. Notohamiprodjo M, Reiser MF, Sourbron SP. Diffusion and perfusion of the kidney. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(3):337–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  254. Braunagel M, Graser A, Reiser M, Notohamiprodjo M. The role of functional imaging in the era of targeted therapy of renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol. 2014;32(1):47–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  255. Michaely HJ, Sourbron SP, Buettner C, Lodemann KP, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. Temporal constraints in renal perfusion imaging with a 2-compartment model. Invest Radiol. 2008;43(2):120–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  256. Li SP, Padhani AR. Tumor response assessments with diffusion and perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(4):745–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  257. Hackstein N, Heckrodt J, Rau WS. Measurement of single-kidney glomerular filtration rate using a contrast-enhanced dynamic gradient-echo sequence and the Rutland-Patlak plot technique. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;18(6):714–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  258. Michaely HJ, Schoenberg SO, Oesingmann N, Ittrich C, Buhlig C, Friedrich D, et al. Renal artery stenosis: functional assessment with dynamic MR perfusion measurements–feasibility study. Radiology. 2006;238(2):586–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  259. Conlin CC, Huang Y, Gordon BAJ, Zhang JL. Quantitative characterization of glomerular fibrosis with magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study in a rat glomerulonephritis model. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2018;314(5):F747–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  260. Wentland AL, Sadowski EA, Djamali A, Grist TM, Becker BN, Fain SB. Quantitative MR measures of intrarenal perfusion in the assessment of transplanted kidneys: initial experience. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(9):1077–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  261. Abdel Razek AA, Mousa A, Farouk A, Nabil N. Assessment of semiquantitative parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Pol J Radiol. 2016;81:90–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  262. Scialpi M, Di Maggio A, Midiri M, Loperfido A, Angelelli G, Rotondo A. Small renal masses: assessment of lesion characterization and vascularity on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with fat suppression. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(3):751–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  263. Sun MR, Ngo L, Genega EM, Atkins MB, Finn ME, Rofsky NM, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiation of tumor subtypes–correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology. 2009;250(3):793–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  264. F Gentili I Bronico U Maestroni F Ziglioli EM Silini S Buti et al 2020 Small renal masses (</= 4 cm): differentiation of oncocytoma from renal clear cell carcinoma using ratio of lesion to cortex attenuation and aorta-lesion attenuation difference (ALAD) on contrast-enhanced CT Radiol Med 125 12 1280 7

  265. Hahn OM, Yang C, Medved M, Karczmar G, Kistner E, Karrison T, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging pharmacodynamic biomarker study of sorafenib in metastatic renal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(28):4572–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  266. van der Pol CB, Chung A, Lim C, Gandhi N, Tu W, McInnes MDF, et al. Update on multiparametric MRI of urinary bladder cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;48(4):882–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  267. Rosenkrantz AB, Geppert C, Grimm R, Block TK, Glielmi C, Feng L, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the prostate with high spatiotemporal resolution using compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and continuous golden-angle radial sampling: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(5):1365–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  268. Rabie E, Faeghi F, Izadpanahi MH, Dayani MA. Role of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging of Bladder Cancer. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(4):TC01-5.

  269. Zhou G, Chen X, Zhang J, Zhu J, Zong G, Wang Z. Contrast-enhanced dynamic and diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3.0T to assess aggressiveness of bladder cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(11):2013-8.

  270. Angileri SA, Di Meglio L, Petrillo M, Arrichiello A, Pandolfi M, Roda GM, et al. Software-assisted US/MRI fusion-targeted biopsy for prostate cancer. Acta Biomed. 2020;91(10-S):2020006.

    Google Scholar 

  271. Beyhan M, Sade R, Koc E, Adanur S, Kantarci M. The evaluation of prostate lesions with IVIM DWI and MR perfusion parameters at 3T MRI. Radiol Med. 2019;124(2):87–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  272. Gundogdu E, Emekli E, Kebapci M. Evaluation of relationships between the final Gleason score, PI-RADS v2 score, ADC value, PSA level, and tumor diameter in patients that underwent radical prostatectomy due to prostate cancer. Radiol Med. 2020;125(9):827–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  273. Abdollahi H, Mofid B, Shiri I, Razzaghdoust A, Saadipoor A, Mahdavi A, et al. Machine learning-based radiomic models to predict intensity-modulated radiation therapy response, Gleason score and stage in prostate cancer. Radiol Med. 2019;124(6):555–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  274. Brunese L, Mercaldo F, Reginelli A, Santone A. Formal methods for prostate cancer Gleason score and treatment prediction using radiomic biomarkers. Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;66:165–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  275. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  276. De Visschere PJ, Vral A, Perletti G, Pattyn E, Praet M, Magri V, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of normal, benign and malignant conditions in the prostate. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):2095–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  277. Cybulski AJ, Catania M, Brancato S, Cogo N, di Paola V, Pozzi Mucelli R, et al. Added value of MRI tractography of peri-prostatic nerve plexus to conventional T2-WI in detection of extra-capsular extension of prostatic cancer. Radiol Med. 2019;124(10):946–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  278. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340-51.

  279. Lovegrove CE, Matanhelia M, Randeva J, Eldred-Evans D, Tam H, Miah S, et al. Prostate imaging features that indicate benign or malignant pathology on biopsy. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(Suppl 4):S420–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  280. Chatterjee A, Gallan AJ, He D, Fan X, Mustafi D, Yousuf A, et al. Revisiting quantitative multi-parametric MRI of benign prostatic hyperplasia and its differentiation from transition zone cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019;44(6):2233–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  281. Patel P, Mathew MS, Trilisky I, Oto A. Multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate after treatment of prostate cancer. Radiographics. 2018;38(2):437–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  282. Meier-Schroers M, Kukuk G, Wolter K, Decker G, Fischer S, Marx C, et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(7):1304–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  283. Cutaia G, Tosto G, Cannella R, Bruno A, Leto C, Salvaggio L, et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings on multiparametric prostate MRI. Radiol Med. 2020;125(2):204–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  284. Coppola A, Platania G, Ticca C, De Mattia C, Bortolato B, Palazzi MF, et al. Sensitivity of CE-MRI in detecting local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Radiol Med. 2020;125(7):683–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  285. Mazaheri Y, Akin O, Hricak H. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: A review of current methods and applications. World J Radiol. 2017;9(12):416–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  286. Park SY, Park BK, Kwon GY. Diagnostic performance of mass enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for predicting clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214(4):792–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  287. Gurgitano M, Angileri SA, Roda GM, Liguori A, Pandolfi M, Ierardi AM, et al. Interventional Radiology ex-machina: impact of Artificial Intelligence on practice. Radiol Med. 2021;126(7):998–1006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  288. Kim SH, Choi MS, Kim MJ, Kim YH, Cho SH. Role of semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in characterization and grading of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2017;94:154–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  289. G Badalamenti C Messina I Luca De E Musso A Casarin L Incorvaia 2019 Soft tissue sarcomas in the precision medicine era: new advances in clinical practice and future perspectives Radiol Med 124 4 259 65

  290. Carotti M, Salaffi F, Beci G, Giovagnoni A. The application of dual-energy computed tomography in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal disorders: a review of current concepts and applications. Radiol Med. 2019;124(11):1175–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  291. Gentili F, Cantarini L, Fabbroni M, Nigri A, Mazzei FG, Frediani B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the sacroiliac joints in SpA: with or without intravenous contrast media? A preliminary report. Radiol Med. 2019;124(11):1142–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  292. Minutoli F, Pergolizzi S, Blandino A, Mormina E, Amato E, Gaeta M. Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on bone marrow: evaluation by intravoxel incoherent motion and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Radiol Med. 2020;125(3):280–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  293. Ostergaard M, Boesen M. Imaging in rheumatoid arthritis: the role of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Radiol Med. 2019;124(11):1128–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  294. Nascimento D, Suchard G, Hatem M, de Abreu A. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone tumours and tumour-like lesions. Insights Imaging. 2014;5(4):419–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  295. Bellelli A, Silvestri E, Barile A, Albano D, Aliprandi A, Caudana R, et al. Position paper on magnetic resonance imaging protocols in the musculoskeletal system (excluding the spine) by the Italian College of Musculoskeletal Radiology. Radiol Med. 2019;124(6):522–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  296. Drape JL. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal tumours. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(1 Suppl):S115-23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  297. Bruno F, Arrigoni F, Mariani S, Splendiani A, Di Cesare E, Masciocchi C, et al. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of soft tissue tumors: techniques and applications. Radiol Med. 2019;124(4):243–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  298. Costa FM, Canella C, Gasparetto E. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in the evaluation of musculoskeletal tumors. Radiol Clin North Am. 2011;49(6):1325-58, vii-viii.

  299. V Chianca D Albano C Messina G Vincenzo S Rizzo F Grande Del et al 2021 An update in musculoskeletal tumors: from quantitative imaging to radiomics Radiol Med 126 8 1095 105

  300. Robba T, Chianca V, Albano D, Clementi V, Piana R, Linari A, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging for the cellularity assessment and matrix characterization of soft tissue tumour. Radiol Med. 2017;122(11):871–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  301. Hong SH, Choi JY, Lee JW, Kim NR, Choi JA, Kang HS. MR imaging assessment of the spine: infection or an imitation? Radiographics. 2009;29(2):599–612.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Domenico Albano and Federico Bruno have Contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), SIRM Foundation, Milan, Italy

    Domenico Albano, Federico Bruno, Andrea Agostini, Salvatore Alessio Angileri, Massimo Benenati, Diletta Cozzi, Giuliana Giacobbe, Pasquale Guerriero, Giuseppe Micci, Pierpaolo Palumbo, Roberto Grassi, Vittorio Miele & Antonio Barile

  2. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy

    Domenico Albano & Carmelo Messina

  3. Dipartimento Di Biomedicina, Neuroscienze E Diagnostica Avanzata, Sezione Di Scienze Radiologiche, Università Degli Studi Di Palermo, via Vetoio 1L’Aquila, 67100, Palermo, Italy

    Domenico Albano & Giuseppe Micci

  4. Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

    Federico Bruno & Antonio Barile

  5. Department of Clinical, Special and Dental Sciences, Department of Radiology, University Politecnica delle Marche, University Hospital “Ospedali Riuniti Umberto I – G.M. Lancisi – G. Salesi”, Ancona, Italy

    Andrea Agostini

  6. Radiology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy

    Salvatore Alessio Angileri

  7. Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Oncologia ed Ematologia, RadioterapiaRome, Italy

    Massimo Benenati

  8. Diagnostic Senology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy

    Giulia Bicchierai

  9. Department of Radiology, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Ospedale Fatebenefratelli, Milan, Italy

    Michaela Cellina

  10. Ospedale Evangelico Betania, Naples, Italy

    Vito Chianca

  11. Clinica Di Radiologia, Istituto Imaging Della Svizzera Italiana - Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland

    Vito Chianca

  12. Department of Emergency Radiology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy

    Diletta Cozzi & Ginevra Danti

  13. Department of Medicine and Health Sciences “Vincenzo Tiberio”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy

    Federica De Muzio & Pasquale Guerriero

  14. Postgraduation School in Radiodiagnostics, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Letizia Di Meglio

  15. Unit of Diagnostic Imaging, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, Siena, Italy

    Francesco Gentili

  16. Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy

    Giuliana Giacobbe, Maria Paola Rocco & Roberto Grassi

  17. Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy

    Giulia Grazzini & Vittorio Miele

  18. Department of Radiology, Section of Neuroradiology, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy

    Irene Grazzini

  19. Abruzzo Health Unit 1, Department of diagnostic Imaging, Area of Cardiovascular and Interventional Imaging, L’Aquila, Italy

    Pierpaolo Palumbo

Authors
  1. Domenico Albano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Federico Bruno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Agostini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Salvatore Alessio Angileri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Massimo Benenati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giulia Bicchierai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michaela Cellina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vito Chianca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Diletta Cozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ginevra Danti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Federica De Muzio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Letizia Di Meglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Francesco Gentili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Giuliana Giacobbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Giulia Grazzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Irene Grazzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Pasquale Guerriero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Carmelo Messina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Giuseppe Micci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Pierpaolo Palumbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Maria Paola Rocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Roberto Grassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Vittorio Miele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Antonio Barile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the Young SIRM Working Group

Contributions

DA and FB had the idea for the article. All the authors critically revised the manuscript, commented on drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Bruno.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albano, D., Bruno, F., Agostini, A. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging: state of the art and applications in whole-body imaging. Jpn J Radiol 40, 341–366 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-021-01223-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-021-01223-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation