Article

Precise measurement of renal filtration and vascular parameters using a two-compartment model for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the kidney gives realistic normal values.

Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Sussex BN1 9PX, UK.
European Radiology (Impact Factor: 4.34). 03/2012; 22(6):1320-30. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2382-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To model the uptake phase of T(1)-weighted DCE-MRI data in normal kidneys and to demonstrate that the fitted physiological parameters correlate with published normal values.
The model incorporates delay and broadening of the arterial vascular peak as it appears in the capillary bed, two distinct compartments for renal intravascular and extravascular Gd tracer, and uses a small-vessel haematocrit value of 24%. Four physiological parameters can be estimated: regional filtration K ( trans ) (ml min(-1) [ml tissue](-1)), perfusion F (ml min(-1) [100 ml tissue](-1)), blood volume v ( b ) (%) and mean residence time MRT (s). From these are found the filtration fraction (FF; %) and total GFR (ml min(-1)). Fifteen healthy volunteers were imaged twice using oblique coronal slices every 2.5 s to determine the reproducibility.
Using parenchymal ROIs, group mean values for renal biomarkers all agreed with published values: K ( trans ): 0.25; F: 219; v ( b ): 34; MRT: 5.5; FF: 15; GFR: 115. Nominally cortical ROIs consistently underestimated total filtration (by ~50%). Reproducibility was 7-18%. Sensitivity analysis showed that these fitted parameters are most vulnerable to errors in the fixed parameters kidney T(1), flip angle, haematocrit and relaxivity.
These renal biomarkers can potentially measure renal physiology in diagnosis and treatment.
• Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging can measure renal function. • Filtration and perfusion values in healthy volunteers agree with published normal values. • Precision measured in healthy volunteers is between 7 and 15%.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
166 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compared three methods for analyzing DCE-MRI data with a reference region (RR) model: a linear least-square fitting with numerical analysis (LLSQ-N), a nonlinear least-square fitting with numerical analysis (NLSQ-N), and an analytical analysis (NLSQ-A). The accuracy and precision of estimating the pharmacokinetic parameter ratios KR and VR, where KR is defined as a ratio between the two volume transfer constants, K(trans,TOI) and K(trans,RR), and VR is the ratio between the two extracellular extravascular volumes, ve,TOI and ve,RR, were assessed using simulations under various signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and temporal resolutions (4, 6, 30, and 60s). When no noise was added, the simulations showed that the mean percent error (MPE) for the estimated KR and VR using the LLSQ-N and NLSQ-N methods ranged from 1.2% to 31.6% with various temporal resolutions while the NLSQ-A method maintained a very high accuracy (<1.0×10(-4) %) regardless of the temporal resolution. The simulation also indicated that the LLSQ-N and NLSQ-N methods appear to underestimate the parameter ratios more than the NLSQ-A method. In addition, seven in vivo DCE-MRI datasets from spontaneously occurring canine brain tumors were analyzed with each method. Results for the in vivo study showed that KR (ranging from 0.63 to 3.11) and VR (ranging from 2.82 to 19.16) for the NLSQ-A method were both higher than results for the other two methods (KR ranging from 0.01 to 1.29 and VR ranging from 1.48 to 19.59). A temporal downsampling experiment showed that the averaged percent error for the NLSQ-A method (8.45%) was lower than the other two methods (22.97% for LLSQ-N and 65.02% for NLSQ-N) for KR, and the averaged percent error for the NLSQ-A method (6.33%) was lower than the other two methods (6.57% for LLSQ-N and 13.66% for NLSQ-N) for VR. Using simulations, we showed that the NLSQ-A method can estimate the ratios of pharmacokinetic parameters more accurately and precisely than the NLSQ-N and LLSQ-N methods over various SNRs and temporal resolutions. All simulations were validated with in vivo DCE MRI data.
    Magnetic Resonance Imaging 04/2014; · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the reproducibility of arterial spin labelling (ASL) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and quantitatively compare these techniques for the measurement of renal blood flow (RBF). Sixteen healthy volunteers were examined on two different occasions. ASL was performed using a multi-TI FAIR labelling scheme with a segmented 3D-GRASE imaging module. DCE MRI was performed using a 3D-FLASH pulse sequence. A Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess repeatability of each technique, and determine the degree of correspondence between the two methods. The overall mean cortical renal blood flow (RBF) of the ASL group was 263 ± 41 ml min(-1) [100 ml tissue](-1), and using DCE MRI was 287 ± 70 ml min(-1) [100 ml tissue](-1). The group coefficient of variation (CVg) was 18 % for ASL and 28 % for DCE-MRI. Repeatability studies showed that ASL was more reproducible than DCE with CVgs of 16 % and 25 % for ASL and DCE respectively. Bland-Altman analysis comparing the two techniques showed a good agreement. The repeated measures analysis shows that the ASL technique has better reproducibility than DCE-MRI. Difference analysis shows no significant difference between the RBF values of the two techniques. • Reliable non-invasive monitoring of renal blood flow is currently clinically unavailable. • Renal arterial spin labelling MRI is robust and repeatable. • Renal dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is robust and repeatable. • ASL blood flow values are similar to those obtained using DCE-MRI.
    European Radiology 03/2014; · 4.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nuclear medicine and MRI provide information about renal perfusion, function (glomerular filtration rate), and drainage. Some tracers that are used in nuclear medicine (technetium-diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid ([(99m)Tc-DTPA] and (51)chromium-EDTA) and some contrast media (CM) that are used for MRI (gadolinium-DTPA for instance) share the same pharmacokinetic properties, though, detection techniques are different (low-spatial resolution 2-dimensional projection with a good concentration-to-signal linearity for nuclear medicine and high-resolution 3-dimensional localization with nonlinear behavior for MRI). Thus, though based on the same principles, the methods are not the same and they provide somewhat different information. Many MRI perfusion studies have been conducted; some of them were compared with nuclear medicine with no good agreement. Phase contrast can reliably assess global renal blood flow but not perfusion at a tissular level. Arterial spin labeling has not proven to be a reliable tool to measure renal perfusion. Techniques using CM theoretically can assess perfusion at the tissular level, but they have not proven to be precise. To assess renal function, many models have been proposed. Some MRI techniques using CM, both semiquantitative (Patlak) and quantitative, have shown ability to roughly assess relative function. Some quantitative methods (Annet's and Lee's methods) have even showed that they could roughly estimate absolute renal function, with better results than estimated glomerular filtration rate. Quantification of drainage has not been much studied using MRI.
    Seminars in nuclear medicine 03/2014; 44(2):82-92. · 3.96 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
120 Downloads
Available from
May 20, 2014