» Articles » PMID: 26901876

Relating Doses of Contrast Agent Administered to TIC and Semi-Quantitative Parameters on DCE-MRI: Based on a Murine Breast Tumor Model

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2016 Feb 23
PMID 26901876
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To explore the changes in the time-signal intensity curve(TIC) type and semi-quantitative parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced(DCE)imaging in relation to variations in the contrast agent(CA) dosage in the Walker 256 murine breast tumor model, and to determine the appropriate parameters for the evaluation ofneoadjuvantchemotherapy(NAC)response.

Materials And Methods: Walker 256 breast tumor models were established in 21 rats, which were randomly divided into three groups of7rats each. Routine scanning and DCE-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the rats were performed using a 7T MR scanner. The three groups of rats were administered different dosages of the CA0.2mmol/kg, 0.3mmol/kg, and 0.5mmol/kg, respectively; and the corresponding TICs the semi-quantitative parameters were calculated and compared among the three groups.

Results: The TICs were not influenced by the CA dosage and presented a washout pattern in all of the tumors evaluated and weren't influenced by the CA dose. The values of the initial enhancement percentage(Efirst), initial enhancement velocity(Vfirst), maximum signal(Smax), maximum enhancement percentage(Emax), washout percentage(Ewash), and signal enhancement ratio(SER) showed statistically significant differences among the three groups (F = 16.952, p = 0.001; F = 69.483, p<0.001; F = 54.838, p<0.001; F = 12.510, p = 0.003; F = 5.248, p = 0.031; F = 9.733, p = 0.006, respectively). However, the values of the time to peak(Tpeak), maximum enhancement velocity(Vmax), and washout velocity(Vwash)did not differ significantly among the three dosage groups (F = 0.065, p = 0.937; F = 1.505, p = 0.273; χ2 = 1.423, p = 0.319, respectively); the washout slope(Slopewash), too, was uninfluenced by the dosage(F = 1.654, p = 0.244).

Conclusion: The CA dosage didn't affect the TIC type, Tpeak, Vmax, Vwash or Slopewash. These dose-independent parameters as well as the TIC type might be more useful for monitoring the NAC response because they allow the comparisons of the DCE data obtained using different CA dosages.

Citing Articles

Genetic Determination of Regressive Pattern of Walker 256 Carcinosarcoma in Rats with Hypothalamic Diabetes Insipidus.

Khegay I Bull Exp Biol Med. 2022; 173(4):441-443.

PMID: 36058980 DOI: 10.1007/s10517-022-05583-3.


Predicting pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer using multiparametric MRI.

Lu N, Dong J, Fang X, Wang L, Jia W, Zhou Q BMC Med Imaging. 2021; 21(1):155.

PMID: 34688263 PMC: 8542288. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-021-00688-z.


Combination of DCE-MRI and DWI in Predicting the Treatment Effect of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Carcinoma.

Liu C, Sun R, Wang J, Ning F, Wang Z, Luo J Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020:2576563.

PMID: 32626736 PMC: 7315287. DOI: 10.1155/2020/2576563.


Multi-parametric MRI in cervical cancer: early prediction of response to concurrent chemoradiotherapy in combination with clinical prognostic factors.

Yang W, Qiang J, Tian H, Chen B, Wang A, Zhao J Eur Radiol. 2017; 28(1):437-445.

PMID: 28779395 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4989-3.


The Walker 256 Breast Cancer Cell- Induced Bone Pain Model in Rats.

Shenoy P, Kuo A, Vetter I, Smith M Front Pharmacol. 2016; 7:286.

PMID: 27630567 PMC: 5005431. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2016.00286.

References
1.
Schmitz A, Loo C, Wesseling J, Pijnappel R, Gilhuijs K . Association between rim enhancement of breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and patient outcome: impact of subtype. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 148(3):541-51. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-014-3170-9. View

2.
Cho N, Im S, Park I, Lee K, Li M, Han W . Breast cancer: early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using parametric response maps for MR imaging. Radiology. 2014; 272(2):385-96. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14131332. View

3.
El Khouli R, Macura K, Kamel I, Jacobs M, Bluemke D . 3-T dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: pharmacokinetic parameters versus conventional kinetic curve analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197(6):1498-505. PMC: 3496793. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.4665. View

4.
Tateishi U, Miyake M, Nagaoka T, Terauchi T, Kubota K, Kinoshita T . Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: prediction of pathologic response with PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging--prospective assessment. Radiology. 2012; 263(1):53-63. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12111177. View

5.
Khalifa F, Soliman A, El-Baz A, Abou El-Ghar M, El-Diasty T, Gimelfarb G . Models and methods for analyzing DCE-MRI: a review. Med Phys. 2014; 41(12):124301. DOI: 10.1118/1.4898202. View