Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation between quantitative and semiquantitative parameters in DCE-MRI with a blood pool agent in rectal cancer: can semiquantitative parameters be used as a surrogate for quantitative parameters?

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess correlation between quantitative and semiquantitative parameters in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in rectal cancer patients, both in a primary staging and restaging setting.

Materials and methods

Nineteen patients were included with DCE-MRI before and/or after neoadjuvant therapy. DCE-MRI was performed with gadofosveset trisodium (Ablavar®, Lantheus Medical Imaging, North Billerica, Massachusetts, USA). Regions of interest were placed in the tumor and quantitative parameters were extracted with Olea Sphere 2.2 software permeability module using the extended Tofts model. Semiquantitative parameters were calculated on a pixel-by-pixel basis. Spearman rank correlation tests were used for assessment of correlation between parameters. A p value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Strong positive correlations were found between mean peak enhancement and mean K trans: 0.79 (all patients, p<0.0001), 0.83 (primary staging, p = 0.003), and 0.81 (restaging, p = 0.054). Mean wash-in correlated significantly with mean V p and K ep (0.79 and 0.58, respectively, p<0.0001 and p = 0.009) in all patients. Mean wash-in showed a significant correlation with mean K ep (0.67, p = 0.033) in the primary staging group. On the restaging MRI, mean wash-in only strongly correlated with mean V p (0.81, p = 0.054).

Conclusion

This study shows a strong correlation between quantitative and semiquantitative parameters in DCE-MRI for rectal cancer. Peak enhancement correlates strongly with K trans and wash-in showed strong correlation with V p and K ep. These parameters have been reported to predict tumor aggressiveness and response in rectal cancer. Therefore, semiquantitative analyses might be a surrogate for quantitative analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tong T, Sun Y, Gollub MJ, et al. (2015) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: use in predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 42(3):673–680. doi:10.1002/jmri.24835

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Padhani AR, Khan AA (2010) Diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for monitoring anticancer therapy. Target Oncol 5(1):39–52. doi:10.1007/s11523-010-0135-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tofts PS (1997) Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 7(1):91–101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tofts PS, Kermode AG (1991) Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 17(2):357–367

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lollert A, Junginger T, Schimanski CC, et al. (2014) Rectal cancer: dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI correlates with lymph node status and epidermal growth factor receptor expression. J Magn Reson Imaging 39(6):1436–1442. doi:10.1002/jmri.24301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hong HS, Kim SH, Park HJ, et al. (2013) Correlations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with morphologic, angiogenic, and molecular prognostic factors in rectal cancer. Yonsei Med J 54(1):123–130. doi:10.3349/ymj.2013.54.1.123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang XM, Yu D, Zhang HL, et al. (2008) 3D dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of rectal carcinoma at 3T: correlation with microvascular density and vascular endothelial growth factor markers of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging 27(6):1309–1316. doi:10.1002/jmri.21378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Woolf DK, Padhani AR, Taylor NJ, et al. (2014) Assessing response in breast cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: are signal intensity-time curves adequate? Breast Cancer Res Treat 147(2):335–343. doi:10.1007/s10549-014-3072-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Padhani AR, Leach MO (2005) Antivascular cancer treatments: functional assessments by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 30(3):324–341. doi:10.1007/s00261-004-0265-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211(1):101–110. doi:10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap38101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Orel SG (1999) Differentiating benign from malignant enhancing lesions identified at MR imaging of the breast: are time-signal intensity curves an accurate predictor? Radiology 211(1):5–7. doi:10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Renz DM, Diekmann F, Schmitzberger FF, et al. (2013) Pharmacokinetic approach for dynamic breast MRI to indicate signal intensity time curves of benign and malignant lesions by using the tumor flow residence time. Investig Radiol 48(2):69–78. doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e31827d29cf

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hauth EA, Jaeger H, Maderwald S, et al. (2006) Evaluation of quantitative parametric analysis for characterization of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Eur Radiol 16(12):2834–2841. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0348-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenkrantz AB, Sabach A, Babb JS, et al. (2013) Prostate cancer: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI techniques for localization of peripheral zone tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(3):W471–W478. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang B, Wong CS, Whitcher B, et al. (2013) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for characterising nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison of semiquantitative and quantitative parameters and correlation with tumour stage. Eur Radiol 23(6):1495–1502. doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2740-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zahra MA, Tan LT, Priest AN, et al. (2009) Semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging measurements predict radiation response in cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74(3):766–773. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lambregts DM, Beets GL, Maas M, et al. (2011) Accuracy of gadofosveset-enhanced MRI for nodal staging and restaging in rectal cancer. Ann Surg 253(3):539–545. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31820b01f1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sourbron SP, Buckley DL (2013) Classic models for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. NMR Biomed 26(8):1004–1027. doi:10.1002/nbm.2940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim SH, Lee JM, Gupta SN, Han JK, Choi BI (2014) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to evaluate the therapeutic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 40(3):730–737. doi:10.1002/jmri.24387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Intven M, Reerink O, Philippens ME (2015) Dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging for rectal cancer response assessment after neo-adjuvant chemoradiation. J Magn Reson Imaging 41(6):1646–1653. doi:10.1002/jmri.24718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. George ML, Dzik-Jurasz AS, Padhani AR, et al. (2001) Non-invasive methods of assessing angiogenesis and their value in predicting response to treatment in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 88(12):1628–1636

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yeo DM, Oh SN, Jung CK, et al. (2015) Correlation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion parameters with angiogenesis and biologic aggressiveness of rectal cancer: preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 41(2):474–480. doi:10.1002/jmri.24541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chwang WB, Jain R, Bagher-Ebadian H, et al. (2014) Measurement of rat brain tumor kinetics using an intravascular MR contrast agent and DCE-MRI nested model selection. J Magn Reson Imaging 40(5):1223–1229. doi:10.1002/jmri.24469

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Martens MH, Subhani S, Heijnen LA, et al. (2015) Can perfusion MRI predict response to preoperative treatment in rectal cancer? Radiother Oncol 114(2):218–223. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Petrillo A, Fusco R, Petrillo M, et al. (2015) Standardized Index of Shape (SIS): a quantitative DCE-MRI parameter to discriminate responders by non-responders after neoadjuvant therapy in LARC. Eur Radiol 25(7):1935–1945. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3581-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands

      Rebecca A. P. Dijkhoff

    2. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      Monique Maas, Doenja M. J. Lambregts & Regina G. H. Beets-Tan

    3. Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5500, 6130 MB, Sittard, The Netherlands

      Milou H. Martens

    4. Division for Medical Imaging and Technology, Institute for Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden

      Nikolaos Papanikolaou

    5. Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

      Geerard L. Beets

    Authors
    1. Rebecca A. P. Dijkhoff
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Monique Maas
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Milou H. Martens
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Nikolaos Papanikolaou
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Doenja M. J. Lambregts
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Geerard L. Beets
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Regina G. H. Beets-Tan
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Monique Maas.

    Ethics declarations

    Funding

    No funding was received for this study.

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

    Ethical approval

    All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

    Informed consent

    Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

    Additional information

    R.A.P. Dijkhoff and M. Maas contributed equally to this manuscript and therefore share first authorship.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Dijkhoff, R.A.P., Maas, M., Martens, M.H. et al. Correlation between quantitative and semiquantitative parameters in DCE-MRI with a blood pool agent in rectal cancer: can semiquantitative parameters be used as a surrogate for quantitative parameters?. Abdom Radiol 42, 1342–1349 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-1024-0

    Download citation

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-1024-0

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation