Display options
Cite
Gauthier M, Leguerney I, Thalmensi J, et al. Estimation of intra-operator variability in perfusion parameter measurements using DCE-US. World J Radiol. 2011;3(3):70-81doi: 10.4329/wjr.v3.i3.70.
Gauthier, M., Leguerney, I., Thalmensi, J., Chebil, M., Parisot, S., Peronneau, P., Roche, A., & Lassau, N. (2011). Estimation of intra-operator variability in perfusion parameter measurements using DCE-US. World journal of radiology, 3(3), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v3.i3.70
Gauthier, Marianne, et al. "Estimation of intra-operator variability in perfusion parameter measurements using DCE-US." World journal of radiology vol. 3,3 (2011): 70-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v3.i3.70
Gauthier M, Leguerney I, Thalmensi J, Chebil M, Parisot S, Peronneau P, Roche A, Lassau N. Estimation of intra-operator variability in perfusion parameter measurements using DCE-US. World J Radiol. 2011 Mar 28;3(3):70-81. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v3.i3.70. PMID: 21512654; PMCID: PMC3080053.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

World J Radiol. 2011 Mar 28;3(3):70-81. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v3.i3.70.

Estimation of intra-operator variability in perfusion parameter measurements using DCE-US.

World journal of radiology

Marianne Gauthier, Ingrid Leguerney, Jessie Thalmensi, Mohamed Chebil, Sarah Parisot, Pierre Peronneau, Alain Roche, Nathalie Lassau

Affiliations

  1. Marianne Gauthier, Ingrid Leguerney, Jessie Thalmensi, Sarah Parisot, Pierre Peronneau, Alain Roche, Nathalie Lassau, IR4M, UMR 8081, CNRS, Paris-Sud 11 Univ, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif 94805, France.

PMID: 21512654 PMCID: PMC3080053 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v3.i3.70

Abstract

AIM: To investigate intra-operator variability of semi-quantitative perfusion parameters using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US), following bolus injections of SonoVue(®).

METHODS: The in vitro experiments were conducted using three in-house sets up based on pumping a fluid through a phantom placed in a water tank. In the in vivo experiments, B16F10 melanoma cells were xenografted to five nude mice. Both in vitro and in vivo, images were acquired following bolus injections of the ultrasound contrast agent SonoVue(®) (Bracco, Milan, Italy) and using a Toshiba Aplio(®) ultrasound scanner connected to a 2.9-5.8 MHz linear transducer (PZT, PLT 604AT probe) (Toshiba, Japan) allowing harmonic imaging ("Vascular Recognition Imaging") involving linear raw data. A mathematical model based on the dye-dilution theory was developed by the Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France and used to evaluate seven perfusion parameters from time-intensity curves. Intra-operator variability analyses were based on determining perfusion parameter coefficients of variation (CV).

RESULTS: In vitro, different volumes of SonoVue(®) were tested with the three phantoms: intra-operator variability was found to range from 2.33% to 23.72%. In vivo, experiments were performed on tumor tissues and perfusion parameters exhibited values ranging from 1.48% to 29.97%. In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) and the area under the wash-out (AUWO) were two of the parameters of great interest since throughout in vitro and in vivo experiments their variability was lower than 15.79%.

CONCLUSION: AUC and AUWO appear to be the most reliable parameters for assessing tumor perfusion using DCE-US as they exhibited the lowest CV values.

Keywords: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography; Functional imaging; Intra-operator variability; Linear raw data; Quantification; Semi-quantitative perfusion parameters

References

  1. Eur Radiol. 2007 Aug;17(8):1995-2008 - PubMed
  2. Eur Radiol. 2007 Jul;17(7):1700-13 - PubMed
  3. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999 Jan;20(1):63-73 - PubMed
  4. Eur Radiol. 2004 Oct;14 Suppl 8:P11-5 - PubMed
  5. Cancer Lett. 1991 May 24;57(3):199-202 - PubMed
  6. Clin Cancer Res. 2003 Dec 15;9(17):6350-6 - PubMed
  7. Invest Radiol. 2000 Jan;35(1):72-9 - PubMed
  8. Invest Radiol. 2007 Feb;42(2):95-104 - PubMed
  9. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001 Feb;27(2):223-33 - PubMed
  10. Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Jun 1;10(11):3650-7 - PubMed
  11. Int J Mol Med. 2008 Dec;22(6):817-23 - PubMed
  12. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001 Jan;27(1):83-8 - PubMed
  13. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Feb;194(2):W134-40 - PubMed
  14. J Ultrasound Med. 2008 May;27(5):685-92 - PubMed
  15. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009 Aug;35(8):1385-96 - PubMed
  16. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47 - PubMed
  17. Target Oncol. 2010 Mar;5(1):53-8 - PubMed
  18. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008 Feb;19(2):899-906 - PubMed
  19. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):172-87 - PubMed
  20. Radiology. 2004 Aug;232(2):420-30 - PubMed
  21. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Aug;37 Suppl 1:S138-46 - PubMed
  22. Invest Radiol. 2000 Nov;35(11):661-71 - PubMed
  23. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002 May;28(5):625-34 - PubMed
  24. Ann Oncol. 2005 Jul;16(7):1054-60 - PubMed
  25. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Aug;37 Suppl 1:S114-26 - PubMed
  26. Echocardiography. 1999 Oct;16(7, Pt 2):743-746 - PubMed
  27. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1993;19(6):447-60 - PubMed
  28. Eur Radiol. 2006 Jul;16(7):1599-609 - PubMed
  29. Br J Radiol. 2003 Apr;76(904):220-31 - PubMed
  30. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003 Oct;29(10):1493-500 - PubMed
  31. Nat Med. 2004 Feb;10(2):145-7 - PubMed
  32. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1994;120(11):631-5 - PubMed
  33. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Feb 2;92(3):205-16 - PubMed
  34. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009 Apr;20(4):983-9 - PubMed
  35. Eur Radiol. 2008 Oct;18(10):2155-63 - PubMed
  36. Br J Cancer. 2006 May 22;94(10):1420-7 - PubMed
  37. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Jan;73(1):153-8 - PubMed
  38. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010 Feb;36(2):306-12 - PubMed
  39. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 20;23(18):4162-71 - PubMed
  40. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Feb 15;16(4):1216-25 - PubMed
  41. Langmuir. 2010 May 4;26(9):6542-8 - PubMed
  42. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009 Dec;72(3):217-38 - PubMed
  43. J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Dec;23(12):1557-68 - PubMed
  44. Invest Radiol. 2008 Feb;43(2):100-11 - PubMed
  45. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005 Jan;31(1):93-8 - PubMed

Publication Types