TY - JOUR
T1 - Are complex DCE-MRI models supported by clinical data?
AU - Duan, Chong
AU - Kallehauge, Jesper F.
AU - Bretthorst, G. Larry
AU - Tanderup, Kari
AU - Ackerman, Joseph J.H.
AU - Garbow, Joel R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
PY - 2017/3/1
Y1 - 2017/3/1
N2 - Purpose: To ascertain whether complex dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI tracer kinetic models are supported by data acquired in the clinic and to determine the consequences of limited contrast-to-noise. Methods: Generically representative in silico and clinical (cervical cancer) DCE-MRI data were examined. Bayesian model selection evaluated support for four compartmental DCE-MRI models: the Tofts model (TM), Extended Tofts model, Compartmental Tissue Uptake model (CTUM), and Two-Compartment Exchange model. Results: Complex DCE-MRI models were more sensitive to noise than simpler models with respect to both model selection and parameter estimation. Indeed, as contrast-to-noise decreased, complex DCE models became less probable and simpler models more probable. The less complex TM and CTUM were the optimal models for the DCE-MRI data acquired in the clinic. [In cervical tumors, Ktrans, Fp, and PS increased after radiotherapy (P = 0.004, 0.002, and 0.014, respectively)]. Conclusion: Caution is advised when considering application of complex DCE-MRI kinetic models to data acquired in the clinic. It follows that data-driven model selection is an important prerequisite to DCE-MRI analysis. Model selection is particularly important when high-order, multiparametric models are under consideration. (Parameters obtained from kinetic modeling of cervical cancer clinical DCE-MRI data showed significant changes at an early stage of radiotherapy.) Magn Reson Med 77:1329–1339, 2017.
AB - Purpose: To ascertain whether complex dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI tracer kinetic models are supported by data acquired in the clinic and to determine the consequences of limited contrast-to-noise. Methods: Generically representative in silico and clinical (cervical cancer) DCE-MRI data were examined. Bayesian model selection evaluated support for four compartmental DCE-MRI models: the Tofts model (TM), Extended Tofts model, Compartmental Tissue Uptake model (CTUM), and Two-Compartment Exchange model. Results: Complex DCE-MRI models were more sensitive to noise than simpler models with respect to both model selection and parameter estimation. Indeed, as contrast-to-noise decreased, complex DCE models became less probable and simpler models more probable. The less complex TM and CTUM were the optimal models for the DCE-MRI data acquired in the clinic. [In cervical tumors, Ktrans, Fp, and PS increased after radiotherapy (P = 0.004, 0.002, and 0.014, respectively)]. Conclusion: Caution is advised when considering application of complex DCE-MRI kinetic models to data acquired in the clinic. It follows that data-driven model selection is an important prerequisite to DCE-MRI analysis. Model selection is particularly important when high-order, multiparametric models are under consideration. (Parameters obtained from kinetic modeling of cervical cancer clinical DCE-MRI data showed significant changes at an early stage of radiotherapy.) Magn Reson Med 77:1329–1339, 2017.
KW - Bayesian inference
KW - DCE-MRI
KW - cervical cancer
KW - model selection
KW - pharmacokinetics
KW - tracer kinetic modeling
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959474969&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/mrm.26189
DO - 10.1002/mrm.26189
M3 - Article
C2 - 26946317
AN - SCOPUS:84959474969
SN - 0740-3194
VL - 77
SP - 1329
EP - 1339
JO - Magnetic resonance in medicine
JF - Magnetic resonance in medicine
IS - 3
ER -