Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제14권1호
  • /
  • Pages.102-109
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Preliminary Experience Using Dynamic MRI at 3.0 Tesla for Evaluation of Soft Tissue Tumors

  • Park, Michael Yong (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Jee, Won-Hee (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Sun Ki (Department of Radiology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Lee, So-Yeon (Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Joon-Yong (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 발행 : 2013.02.01
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the use of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) at 3.0 T for differentiating the benign from malignant soft tissue tumors. Also we aimed to assess whether the shorter length of DCEMRI protocols are adequate, and to evaluate the effect of temporal resolution. Materials and Methods: Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, at 3.0 T with a 1 second temporal resolution in 13 patients with pathologically confirmed soft tissue tumors, was analyzed. Visual assessment of time-signal curves, subtraction images, maximal relative enhancement at the first (maximal peak enhancement [Emax]/1) and second (Emax/2) minutes, Emax, steepest slope calculated by using various time intervals (5, 30, 60 seconds), and the start of dynamic enhancement were analyzed. Results: The 13 tumors were comprised of seven benign and six malignant soft tissue neoplasms. Washout on time-signal curves was seen on three (50%) malignant tumors and one (14%) benign one. The most discriminating DCE-MRI parameter was the steepest slope calculated, by using at 5-second intervals, followed by Emax/1 and Emax/2. All of the steepest slope values occurred within 2 minutes of the dynamic study. Start of dynamic enhancement did not show a significant difference, but no malignant tumor rendered a value greater than 14 seconds. Conclusion: The steepest slope and early relative enhancement have the potential for differentiating benign from malignant soft tissue tumors. Short-length rather than long-length DCE-MRI protocol may be adequate for our purpose. The steepest slope parameters require a short temporal resolution, while maximal peak enhancement parameter may be more optimal for a longer temporal resolution.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Erlemann, R, Reiser, MF, Peters, PE, Vasallo, P, Nommensen, B, Kusnierz-Glaz, CR,Musculoskeletal neoplasms: static and dynamic Gd-DTPA--enhanced MR imaging, Radiology, 171, 1, 767-773(1989) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.171.3.2717749
  2. Verstraete KL, De Deene Y, Roels H, Dierick A, Uyttendaele D, Kunnen M. Benign and malignant musculoskeletal lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging--parametric "firstpass" images depict tissue vascularization and perfusion. Radiology 1994;192:835-843 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.192.3.8058957
  3. van Rijswijk, CS, Geirnaerdt, MJ, Hogendoorn, PC, Taminiau, AH, van Coevorden, F, Zwinderman, AH,Soft-tissue tumors: value of static and dynamic gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in prediction of malignancy, Radiology, 233, 3, 493-502(2004) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2332031110
  4. Tuncbilek, N, Karakas, HM, Okten, OO,Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in the differential diagnosis of soft tissue tumors, Eur J Radiol, 53, 4, 500-505(2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.04.012
  5. Carmeliet, P, Jain, RK,Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases, Nature, 407, 5, 249-257(2000) https://doi.org/10.1038/35025220
  6. Kuhl, CK, Mielcareck, P, Klaschik, S, Leutner, C, Wardelmann, E, Gieseke, J,Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?, Radiology, 211, 6, 101-110(1999) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap38101
  7. van der Woude, HJ, Verstraete, KL, Hogendoorn, PC, Taminiau, AH, Hermans, J, Bloem, JL,Musculoskeletal tumors: does fast dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging contribute to the characterization?, Radiology, 208, 7, 821-828(1998) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.208.3.9722866
  8. Kuhl, CK, Schild, HH, Morakkabati, N,Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution, Radiology, 236, 8, 789-800(2005) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363040811
  9. Moon, M, Cornfeld, D, Weinreb, J,Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging, Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 17, 9, 351-362(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2009.01.010
  10. Verstraete, KL, Vanzieleghem, B, De Deene, Y, Palmans, H, De Greef, D, Kristoffersen, DT,Static, dynamic and first-pass MR imaging of musculoskeletal lesions using gadodiamide injection, Acta Radiol, 36, 10, 27-36(1995) https://doi.org/10.1177/028418519503600105
  11. Fletcher, BD, Hanna, SL, Fairclough, DL, Gronemeyer, SA,Pediatric musculoskeletal tumors: use of dynamic, contrast-enhanced MR imaging to monitor response to chemotherapy, Radiology, 184, 11, 243-248(1992) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.184.1.1319075
  12. Lang, P, Honda, G, Roberts, T, Vahlensieck, M, Johnston, JO, Rosenau, W,Musculoskeletal neoplasm: perineoplastic edema versus tumor on dynamic postcontrast MR images with spatial mapping of instantaneous enhancement rates, Radiology, 197, 12, 831-839(1995) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480764
  13. Ma, LD, Frassica, FJ, McCarthy, EF, Bluemke, DA, Zerhouni, EA,Benign and malignant musculoskeletal masses: MR imaging differentiation with rim-to-center differential enhancement ratios, Radiology, 202, 13, 739-744(1997) https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.202.3.9051028
  14. Fletcher, BD, Reddick, WE, Taylor, JS,Dynamic MR imaging of musculoskeletal neoplasms, Radiology, 200, 14, 869-872(1996)
  15. Lavini, C, de Jonge, MC, van de Sande, MG, Tak, PP, Nederveen, AJ, Maas, M,Pixel-by-pixel analysis of DCE MRI curve patterns and an illustration of its application to the imaging of the musculoskeletal system, Magn Reson Imaging, 25, 15, 604-612(2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2006.10.021
  16. Lavini, C, Pikaart, BP, de Jonge, MC, Schaap, GR, Maas, M,Region of interest and pixel-by-pixel analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging parameters and time-intensity curve shapes: a comparison in chondroid tumors, Magn Reson Imaging, 27, 16, 62-68(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2008.05.012
  17. Ahn, SJ, An, CS, Koom, WS, Song, HT, Suh, JS,Correlations of 3T DCE-MRI quantitative parameters with microvessel density in a human-colorectal-cancer xenograft mouse model, Korean J Radiol, 12, 17, 722-730(2011) https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2011.12.6.722
  18. Yang, J, Kim, JH, Im, GH, Heo, H, Yoon, S, Lee, J,Evaluation of antiangiogenic effects of a new synthetic candidate drug KR-31831 on xenografted ovarian carcinoma using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI, Korean J Radiol, 12, 18, 602-610(2011) https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2011.12.5.602
  19. Pabst, T, Kenn, W, Kaiser, WA, Hahn, D,Understanding why contrast enhancement in dynamic MRI is not reproducible: illustration with a simple phantom, Breast J, 7, 19, 166-170(2001) https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4741.2001.007003166.x

피인용 문헌

  1. The clinical value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in differential diagnosis of malignant and benign ovarian lesions vol.36, pp.7, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-015-3219-3
  2. Imaging of Soft-Tissue Musculoskeletal Masses: Fundamental Concepts vol.36, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016160084
  3. Characterization of indeterminate soft tissue masses referred for biopsy: What is the added value of contrast imaging at 3.0 tesla? vol.45, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25361
  4. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of soft tissue tumors: techniques and applications vol.124, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-019-01035-7
  5. Benign or Malignant Characterization of Soft-Tissue Tumors by Using Semiquantitative and Quantitative Parameters of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging vol.71, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/0846537119888409
  6. Multiparametric quantitative analysis of tumor perfusion and diffusion with 3T MRI: differentiation between benign and malignant soft tissue tumors vol.93, pp.1115, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20191035