A novel anthropomorphic phantom test device was used to investigate the effects of temporal resolution (Tres), B1+-field non-uniformities, and pharmacokinetic (PK) model fitting methods on the absolute accuracy and precision of DCE-MRI measurements of the arterial input function (AIF), and resulting PK parameter estimates. Optimizing the Tres was found to reduce the maximum errors in PK parameter estimation from ~47% to ~20%. By correcting for B1+-field non-uniformities these errors were further reduced to ~7%. Using a linear rather than non-linear version of the standard Tofts model further increased the accuracy and precision of PK parameter estimations.
Introduction
The arterial input function (AIF) is a measure of change in contrast agent (CA) concentration over time in a blood vessel feeding the tissue of interest, and is critical to the retrieval of pharmacokinetic (PK) perfusion parameters using the standard Tofts model in quantitative DCE-MRI [1]. However, to date a method has been lacking which allows for repeated acquisitions of a known ‘ground truth’, physiologically-relevant AIF, in an anthropomorphic environment which replicates the challenges faced in abdominal / pelvic imaging. This has hampered a comprehensive investigation into the absolute accuracy and precision of AIF measurements made using various DCE-MRI approaches. This shortcoming is addressed in the present study, wherein a completely characterized phantom device was used to quantify the effects of temporal resolution (Tres), B1+-field non-uniformities, and PK model fitting regime on the accuracy and precision of AIF measurements and resulting PK parameter estimates [2].Results
Figure 1 shows the population-averaged AIF established from 32 patient datasets, along with the ground truth AIF established from repeated optical measurements. Optical intra-/inter-session measurements gave high repeatability for the AIF produced at the phantom device, with all CCC values >0.995 (95% confidence intervals = [0.992,0.999]) and %RMSE ≤1.1%. For DCE phantom measurements, the actual flip-angle at the ROIs where measurements were performed differed from the set value by between -29% and -33% for all experiments, which led to large underestimations in the derived Gd concentrations, as illustrated in Figure 2(a), with correspondingly low CCC values (minimum CCC = 0.42, and %RMSE of up to 14%). These errors were greatly reduced when VFAC was applied to the data, as illustrated in Figure 2(b), with a corresponding gain in the CCC (>0.83) and %RMSE (<8%) values. Large errors in PK parameter estimations of up to 47% were found when an inappropriate Tres was used and no VFAC performed; by optimizing the Tres these errors reduced to ~20%, and by applying VFAC these errors were further decreased to ≤7% (as illustrated in Figures 3). Additionally, the use of a linear PK modelling fitting regime, rather than non-linear, almost doubled the accuracy of certain parameter estimations, increased intra-/inter-session precision by up to a further 4%, and relaxed the dependence of the accuracy of the results on the Tres used.Discussion
These results demonstrate the significant effect that Tres and B1+-field non-uniformities can have on DCE-MRI measurements, and thus underpins the importance of controlling these parameters by careful acquisition sequence optimization, B1+-field mapping, and the use of an appropriate data pre-processing regime to correct for flip-angle deviations. These results also demonstrated that a further appreciable gain in PK modelling accuracy and precision can be achieved through the optimization of the PK model fitting regime.[1] Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:223-32.
[2] Knight SP, Browne JE, Meaney JF, Smith DS, Fagan AJ. A novel anthropomorphic flow phantom for the quantitative evaluation of prostate DCE-MRI acquisition techniques. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:7466-83.
[3] Murase K. Efficient method for calculating kinetic parameters using T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2004;51:858-62