Reproducibility of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging: Why We Should Care

Abstract

HomeRadiologyVol. 266, No. 3 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryEditorialsReproducibility of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging: Why We Should CareVicky Goh , Tobias Schaeffter, Martin LeachVicky Goh , Tobias Schaeffter, Martin LeachAuthor AffiliationsFrom the Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King’s College London, Imaging 2, Level 1, Lambeth Wing, St Thomas’s Hospital, Lambeth Palace Rd, London SE1 7EH, England (V.G., T.S.); Department of Radiology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, England (V.G.); and Cancer Research UK and EPSRC Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, England (M.L.).Address correspondence to V.G. (e-mail: [email protected]).Vicky Goh Tobias SchaeffterMartin LeachPublished Online:Mar 1 2013https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12122447MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In AbstractThe results of two studies published in this issue of Radiology stress the difficulties of performing dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging across different commercially available software platforms in clinical practice, but more important suggest a potential solution.References1 Messiou C, Orton M, Ang JEet al.. Advanced solid tumors treated with cediranib: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and CT as markers of vascular activity. Radiology 2012;265(2):426–436. Link, Google Scholar2 Nathan P, Zweifel M, Padhani ARet al.. Phase I trial of combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P) in combination with bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18(12):3428–3439. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3 Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JLet al.. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer 2005;92(9):1599–1610. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Leach MO, Morgan B, Tofts PSet al.. Imaging vascular function for early stage clinical trials using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2012;22(7):1451–1464. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Profile: DCE MRI Quantification Version 1.6. Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance [serial online]. http://qibawiki.rsna.org/images/7/7b/DCEMRIProfile_v1_6-20111213.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed December 19, 2012. Google Scholar6 Heye T, Davenport MS, Horvath JJet al.. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. I. Perfusion characteristics in the female pelvis by using multiple computer-aided diagnosis perfusion analysis solutions. Radiology 2013;266(3):801–811. Link, Google Scholar7 Heye T, Merkle EM, Reiner CSet al.. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. II. Comparison of intra- and interobserver variability with manual region of interest placement versus semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis. Radiology 2013;266(3):812–821. Link, Google Scholar8 Goh V, Halligan S, Bartram CI. Quantitative tumor perfusion assessment with multidetector CT: are measurements from two commercial software packages interchangeable? Radiology 2007;242(3):777–782. Link, Google Scholar9 Goh V, Halligan S, Gharpuray A, Wellsted D, Sundin J, Bartram CI. Quantitative assessment of colorectal cancer tumor vascular parameters by using perfusion CT: influence of tumor region of interest. Radiology 2008;247(3):726–732. Link, Google Scholar10 Miles KA, Lee TY, Goh Vet al.. Current status and guidelines for the assessment of tumour vascular support with dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2012;22(7):1430–1441. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived November 1, 2012; revision requested November 3; final revision received and accepted November 19.Published online: Mar 2013Published in print: Mar 2013 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByBritish Journal of Cancer, Vol. 125, No. 5Interreader Variability of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI of Recurrent Glioblastoma: The Multicenter ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625 StudyDaniel P. Barboriak, Zheng Zhang, Pratikkumar Desai, Bradley S. Snyder, Yair Safriel, Robert C. McKinstry, Felix Bokstein, Gregory Sorensen, Mark R. Gilbert, Jerrold L. Boxerman, 27 November 2018 | Radiology, Vol. 290, No. 2BMC Bioinformatics, Vol. 20, No. 1The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 92, No. 1096European Radiology, Vol. 28, No. 9European Radiology, Vol. 27, No. 12La radiologia medica, Vol. 122, No. 4Lung Cancer, Vol. 93BMC Medical Imaging, Vol. 16, No. 1Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 42, No. 5Echocardiography, Vol. 32, No. 8Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 32, No. 3Recommended Articles Spontaneous Pregnancy with a Live Birth after Conventional and Partial Uterine Fibroid EmbolizationRadiology2017Volume: 285Issue: 1pp. 302-310The Blood–Cerebrospinal Fluid Barrier May Play a Role in Alzheimer Disease PathogenesisRadiology2022Volume: 304Issue: 3pp. 646-647Subfertility: What the Radiologist Needs to KnowRadioGraphics2017Volume: 37Issue: 5pp. 1587-1602Monitoring Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer by Using Three-dimensional Subharmonic Aided Pressure Estimation and Imaging with US Contrast Agents: Preliminary ExperienceRadiology2017Volume: 285Issue: 1pp. 53-624D Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography with the Keyhole Technique in Children: Technique and Clinical ApplicationsRadioGraphics2016Volume: 36Issue: 2pp. 523-537See More RSNA Education Exhibits Uterine Fibroid Embolization: Preparing for and Treating Post-Procedure PainDigital Posters2018Clinical Factors Related to Technical Success of Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Treatment of Uterine FibroidDigital Posters2020Oncologic Magnetic Resonance ElastographyDigital Posters2020 RSNA Case Collection Recurrent small bowel leiomyosarcomaRSNA Case Collection2021Esophageal Granular Cell Tumor RSNA Case Collection2022Gastric LeiomyomaRSNA Case Collection2021 Vol. 266, No. 3 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download