Synopsis
Target Audience
·
Clinicians and basic scientists who are interested in solidifying their
understanding of the basic principles of contrast based perfusion imaging.
Educational Objectives
Upon completion of this lecture,
participants should be able to:
·
Identify appropriate applications for perfusion imaging methods;
·
Differentiate between different contrast based perfusion imaging
methods, including dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and dynamic susceptibility
contrast (DSC), and be able to use the properties of each variant to select
appropriate application specific methods.
Outline
1. Contrast agents and their kinetics
2. Data analysis
3. Applications
1. Contrast agents and their kinetics
·
Gadolinium-based
contrast agents (GBCA) were originally developed to enhance contrast-to-noise
in anatomic images following intravenous administration.
·
Their
principal mode of action is to increase the relaxation rates (1/T1, 1/T2,
1/T2*) of nearby water molecules thereby modifying local signal intensity.
·
Extracellular
GBCA (e.g. Gd-DTPA, Gd-DOTA, Gd-HP-DO3A, Gd-BT-DO3A)
accumulate in the interstitium of many tissues (e.g. muscle) but do not cross
the healthy blood-brain barrier. A number of extracellular agents behave
very similarly. The examples given here are simply used for the sake of convenience
and are not intended as an endorsement of any agents specifically.
·
Functional
information may be obtained by treating a GBCA as a tracer and following its
kinetics (as opposed to the conventional ‘static’ approach, inject - wait –
image once).
·
After
intravenous administration (normally in the form of a bolus) GBCA transits the
venous and arterial system leaking from capillary beds wherever the endothelial
cell junctions allow. They are excreted principally via the kidneys (e.g. [1]).
·
The
choice of imaging method is crucially dependent on what is to be measured and
the rate of GBCA delivery and uptake.
·
When
imaging tissues with leaky capillaries (e.g. tumors), measurements are
typically made using rapid T1-weighted spoiled gradient echo sequences. This is
known as DCE-MRI.
o
GBCA
in the plasma has a relatively small influence on the signal except where the
vascular volume is large (e.g. in the kidney, heart or certain tumors).
o
GBCA
in the interstitial space has a larger effect since this often represents a
significant fraction of the tissue volume.
·
When
imaging the brain with an intact blood-brain barrier, measurements are typically
made using T2- or T2*-weighted echo-planar sequences. This is known as DSC-MRI.
o
GBCA
restricted to the blood plasma produces an extensive susceptibility effect resulting
in a large signal drop during bolus passage.
·
The
temporal sampling requirements vary enormously. For perfusion studies a
sampling interval of 1 to 3 s is required to measure the rapid transit of the GBCA
bolus. For so-called permeability studies the uptake of GBCA may take several
minutes and sampling rates can be reduced to tens of seconds or even minutes.
2. Data Analysis
·
It is possible to analyze
DCE or DSC data visually. When temporal series are viewed as a movie, regions in
the images of hyper- or hypo-perfusion may stand out very clearly. However, some
form of quantitative analysis is normally undertaken.
·
The plotting of signal-time
curves is a common way of interpreting the data. These may be compared in
different tissue regions or curve shapes may be compared against tabulated
standards [2].
·
To
extract maximum information, tracer kinetic analysis is performed where transport
of GBCA
can be described using a number of parameters:
o
Tissue blood flow (perfusion), F (or plasma
perfusion, Fp); capillary permeability-surface area product, PS (a
measure of vessel leakiness); plasma volume, vp and interstitial
volume, ve.
·
When put together in a
physiologic model (e.g. Fig. 1) and formulated in mathematical terms the tracer
kinetic parameters provide a powerful tool for data analysis.
·
One
way of describing the tracer kinetics is to calculate the convolution of the
arterial input function (AIF, the concentration of GBCA in
the plasma of a feeding artery) with the tissue impulse residue function (IRF),
the theoretical response in the tissue to an infinitely tight unit bolus [4,5].
$$Ct(t) = Fp.AIF*R(t)$$
where Ct(t) is the tissue
concentration of GBCA, Fp is plasma perfusion, R(t) is the IRF and * is the convolution
operator.
·
The
shape of the IRF can be determined in two ways:
o
No
assumption about R(t). Numerical deconvolution may be performed using Ct
and the AIF and this results in an estimate of R(t) directly.
o
Model
assumed. A mathematical description of R(t) may be derived and then data
fitting (usually non-linear regression) to the Ct and AIF data is
used to estimate the model parameters.
3. Applications
·
T2* DSC-MRI is considered
to be the standard approach for perfusion imaging of the brain [6].
·
T1 DCE-MRI has largely superseded
T2* DSC-MRI for perfusion imaging outside the brain. It is particularly popular
in oncological imaging for differential diagnosis, staging and treatment
follow-up. Many tumor types have been imaged in such a manner. More recently
these imaging techniques have found a niche in the field of drug development [7].
·
For
certain applications more complex analysis is required:
o
Measurement
of liver perfusion is complicated by the organ’s dual blood supply (hepatic
artery and portal vein). However, techniques have been developed to model this
system [8,9].
o Another
functional application of tracer kinetic modeling is the assessment of
glomerular filtration rate (GFR) [10,11].
GBCA is filtered in the same way as many radioisotope markers of GFR and can be
studied as part of a comprehensive renal exam [12].
Recommended Reading
Book:
A. Jackson, D.L. Buckley, G.J.M.
Parker, Editors.
Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic
Resonance Imaging in Oncology
Springer-Verlag – Medical Radiology
Series (2005).
Review articles:
A.M. Peters, Fundamentals of tracer kinetics for
radiologists
Brit J Radiol 71:1116-1129
(1998)
S.P. Sourbron, D.L. Buckley,
Tracer kinetic modelling in MRI: estimating perfusion and capillary
permeability. Phys Med Biol 57:R1-R33 (2012).
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Weinmann HJ,
Laniado M, Mutzel W. Pharmacokinetics of Gd-DTPA/dimeglumine after intravenous
injection into healthy volunteers. Physiological Chemistry and Physics and
Medical NMR 1984;16:167-172.
2. Daniel BL,
Yen YF, Glover GH, Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, Sawyer-Glover AM, Black JW, Plevritis
SK, Jeffrey SS, Herfkens RJ. Breast disease: dynamic spiral MR imaging.
Radiology 1998;209(2):499-509.
3. Kuikka JT,
Bassingthwaighte JB, Henrich MM, Feinendegen LE. Mathematical-modeling in
nuclear-medicine. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 1991;18:351-362.
4. Ostergaard
L, Weisskoff RM, Chesler DA, Gyldensted C, Rosen BR. High resolution
measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages.
1. mathematical approach and statistical analysis. Magn Reson Med
1996;36:715-725.
5. Sourbron SP,
Buckley DL. Tracer kinetic modelling in MRI: estimating perfusion and capillary
permeability. Phys Med Biol 2012;57(2):R1-R33.
6. Waldman AD,
Jackson A, Price SJ, Clark CA, Booth TC, Auer DP, Tofts PS, Collins DJ, Leach
MO, Rees JH. Quantitative imaging biomarkers in neuro-oncology. Nature reviews
Clinical oncology 2009;6(8):445-454.
7. Leach MO,
Morgan B, Tofts PS, Buckley DL, Huang W, Horsfield MA, Chenevert TL, Collins
DJ, Jackson A, Lomas D, Whitcher B, Clarke L, Plummer R, Judson I, Jones R,
Alonzi R, Brunner T, Koh DM, Murphy P, Waterton JC, Parker G, Graves MJ,
Scheenen TW, Redpath TW, Orton M, Karczmar G, Huisman H, Barentsz J, Padhani A.
Imaging vascular function for early stage clinical trials using dynamic
contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2012;22(7):1451-1464.
8. Materne R,
Smith AM, Peeters F, Dehoux JP, Keyeux A, Horsmans Y, Van Beers BE. Assessment
of hepatic perfusion parameters with dynamic MRI. Magn Reson Med
2002;47(1):135-142.
9. Sourbron S,
Sommer WH, Reiser MF, Zech CJ. Combined Quantification of Liver Perfusion and
Function with Dynamic Gadoxetic Acid–enhanced MR Imaging. Radiology
2012;263(3):874-883.
10. Buckley DL,
Shurrab AE, Cheung CM, Jones AP, Mamtora H, Kalra PA. Measurement of single
kidney function using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison of two models
in human subjects. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24(5):1117-1123.
11. Lim SW,
Chrysochou C, Buckley DL, Kalra PA, Sourbron SP. Prediction and assessment of
responses to renal artery revascularization with dynamic contrast-enhanced
magnetic resonance imaging: a pilot study. American Journal of Physiology -
Renal Physiology 2013;305(5):F672-F678.
12. Schoenberg
SO, Essig M, Bock M, Hawighorst H, Sharafuddin M, Knopp MV. Comprehensive MR
evaluation of renovascular disease in five breath holds. J Magn Reson Imaging
1999;10(3):347-356.