Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of diagnostic quality and accuracy in color-coded versus gray-scale DCE-MR imaging display

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value and tumor-vascular display properties (microcirculation) of two different functional MRI post-processing and display (color and gray-scale display) techniques used in oncology.

Materials and methods

The study protocol was approved by the IRB and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. 38 dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) data sets of patients with malignant pleural-mesothelioma were acquired and post-processed. DCE-MRI was performed at 1.5 tesla with a T1-weighted 2D gradient-echo-sequence (TR 7.0 ms, TE 3.9 ms, 15 axial slices, 22 sequential repetitions), prior and during chemotherapy. Subtracting first image of contrast-enhanced-dynamic series from the last, produced gray-scale images. Color images were produced using a pharmacokinetic two-compartment model. Eight raters, blinded to diagnosis, by visual assessment of post-processed images evaluated both diagnostic quality of the images and vasculature of the tumor using a rating scale ranging from −5 to +5. The scores for vasculature were assessed by correlating with the maximum amplitude of the total-tumor-ROI for accuracy.

Results

Color coded images were rated as significantly higher in diagnostic quality and tumor vascular score than gray-scale images (p <  0.001, 0.005). ROI signal amplitude analysis and vascular ratings on color coded images were better correlated compared to gray-scale images rating (p <  0.05).

Conclusion

Color coded images were shown to have higher diagnostic quality and accuracy with respect to tumor vasculature in DCE-MRI, therefore their implementation in clinical assessment and follow-up should be considered for wider application.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

Amp:

Amplitude (a.u.)

DCE-MRI:

Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

k el :

Elimination rate constant (min−1)

k ep :

Redistribution rate constant (min−1)

ROI:

Region of interest

TT-ROI:

Total-tumor-region of interest

References

  1. Sharples M, Jeffery NP, du Boulay B, Teather BA, Teather D, du Boulay GH (2000) Structured computer-based training in the interpretation of neuroradiological images. Int J Med Inform 60: 263–280. doi:10.1016/S1386-5056(00)00101-5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fuss M, Wenz F, Scholdei R et al (2000) Radiation-induced regional cerebral blood volume (rCBV) changes in normal brain and low-grade astrocytomas: quantification and time and dose-dependent occurrence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48: 53–58. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(00)00590-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fink C, Ley S, Risse F et al (2005) Effect of inspiratory and expiratory breathhold on pulmonary perfusion: assessment by pulmonary perfusion magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 40: 72–79. doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000149252.42679.78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kiessling F, Huber PE, Grobholz R et al (2004) Dynamic magnetic resonance tomography and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of prostate cancers in rats treated by radiotherapy. Invest Radiol 39: 34–44. doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000095472.37056.0b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Giesel FL, Bischoff H, von Tengg-Kobligk H et al (2006) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a feasibility study of noninvasive assessment, therapeutic follow-up, and possible predictor of improved outcome. Chest 129: 1570–1576. doi:10.1378/chest.129.6.1570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hayes C, Padhani AR, Leach MO (2002) Assessing changes in tumour vascular function using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. NMR Biomed 15: 154–163. doi:10.1002/nbm.756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kroep JR, Peters GJ, van Moorsel CJ et al (1999) Gemcitabine-cisplatin: a schedule finding study. Ann Oncol 10: 1503–1510. doi:10.1023/A:1008339425708

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kayser K, Bohm G, Blum S et al (2001) Glyco- and immu- nohistochemical refinement of the differential diagnosis between mesothelioma and metastatic carcinoma and survival analysis of patients. J Pathol 193: 175–180. doi:10.1002/1096-9896(2000)9999:9999<::AID-PATH772>3.0.CO;2-T

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Butchart EG, Ashcroft T, Barnsley WC, Holden MP (1976) Pleuropneumonectomy in the management of diffuse malignant mesothelioma of the pleura. Experience with 29(patients. Thorax 31): 15–24. doi:10.1136/thx.31.1.15

    Google Scholar 

  10. Knopp MV, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Choyke PL (2003) Functional magnetic resonance imaging in oncology for diagnosis and therapy monitoring. Mol Cancer Ther 2: 419–426

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brix G, Semmler W, Port R, Schad LR, Layer G, Lorenz WJ (1991) Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 15: 621–628. doi:10.1097/00004728-199107000-00018

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Giesel FL, Choyke PL, Mehndiratta A et al (2008) Pharmacokinetic analysis of malignant pleural mesothelioma-initial results of tumor microcirculation and its correlation to microvessel density (CD-34). Acad Radiol 15: 563–570. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2007.12.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Folkman J (1995) Seminars in Medicine of the Beth Israel Hospital, Boston. Clinical applications of research on angiogenesis. N Engl J Med 333: 1757–1763. doi:10.1056/NEJM199512283332608

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ogata Y, Naito H, Azuma H et al (2006) Novel display technique for reference images for visibility of temporal change on radiographs–color digital summation radiography. Radiat Med 24: 28–34. doi:10.1007/BF02489986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Padhani AR, Husband JE (2001) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol 56: 607–620. doi:10.1053/crad.2001.0762

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Knopp MV, Giesel FL, Marcos H, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Choyke P (2001) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Top Magn Reson Imaging 12: 301–308. doi:10.1097/00002142-200108000-00006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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: 101–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, Folkman J (1991) Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis—correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 324: 1–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fletcher BD, Hanna SL, Fairclough DL, Gronemeyer SA (1992) Pediatric musculoskeletal tumors: use of dynamic, contrast-enhanced MR imaging to monitor response to chemotherapy. Radiology 184: 243–248

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Shapeero LG et al (1993) Assessment of breast cancer recurrence with contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging: preliminary results in 26 patients. Radiology 188: 473–478

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology E 010, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), INF 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    A. Mehndiratta, C. M. Zechmann, M. Owsijewitsch, H. von Tengg-Kobligk, P. Zamecnik, H. U. Kauczor & F. L. Giesel

  2. School of Medical Science and Technology, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur, India

    A. Mehndiratta

  3. Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA

    P. L. Choyke & F. L. Giesel

  4. Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

    M. V. Knopp

Authors
  1. A. Mehndiratta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. V. Knopp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. M. Zechmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Owsijewitsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. von Tengg-Kobligk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Zamecnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. U. Kauczor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. L. Choyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. F. L. Giesel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Mehndiratta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mehndiratta, A., Knopp, M.V., Zechmann, C.M. et al. Comparison of diagnostic quality and accuracy in color-coded versus gray-scale DCE-MR imaging display. Int J CARS 4, 457–462 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-009-0356-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-009-0356-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation