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

• Published in: Magma (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 29; no. 1; pp. 49 - 58
• Main Authors: Jajamovich, Guido H., Huang, Wei, Besa, Cecilia, Li, Xin, Afzal, Aneela, Dyvorne, Hadrien A., Taouli, Bachir
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.02.2016
• Subjects: Aged; Algorithms; Arteries - diagnostic imaging; Arteries - pathology; Biology; Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular - diagnostic imaging; Computer Appl. in Life Sciences; Contrast agents; Exchange; Health Informatics; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Imaging; Liver; Liver - diagnostic imaging; Liver - pathology; Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Mathematical models; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Patients; Perfusion; Prospective Studies; Radiology; Rate constants; Reproducibility; Reproducibility of Results; Research Article; Solid State Physics; Water - chemistry; MRI; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver
• ISSN: 0968-5243; 1352-8661
• DOI: 10.1007/s10334-015-0513-4

Objective To quantify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) perfusion and flow with the fast exchange regime-allowed Shutter-Speed model (SSM) compared to the Tofts model (TM). Materials and methods In this prospective study, 25 patients with HCC underwent DCE-MRI. ROIs were placed in liver parenchyma, portal vein, aorta and HCC lesions. Signal intensities were analyzed employing dual-input TM and SSM models. ART (arterial fraction), K trans (contrast agent transfer rate constant from plasma to extravascular extracellular space), v e (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), k ep (contrast agent intravasation rate constant), and τ i (mean intracellular water molecule lifetime) were compared between liver parenchyma and HCC, and ART, K trans , v e and k ep were compared between models using Wilcoxon tests and limits of agreement. Test–retest reproducibility was assessed in 10 patients. Results ART and v e obtained with TM; ART, v e , k e and τ i obtained with SSM were significantly different between liver parenchyma and HCC ( p  < 0.04). Parameters showed variable reproducibility (CV range 14.7–66.5 % for both models). Liver K trans and v e ; HCC v e and k ep were significantly different when estimated with the two models ( p  < 0.03). Conclusion Our results show differences when computed between the TM and the SSM. However, these differences are smaller than parameter reproducibilities and may be of limited clinical significance.