Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response

A multicenter data analysis challenge

Wei Huang, Xin Li, Yiyi Chen, Xia Li, Ming Ching Chang, Matthew J. Oborski, Dariya I. Malyarenko, Mark Muzi, Guido H. Jajamovich, Andriy Fedorov, Alina Tudorica, Sandeep N. Gupta, Charles M. Laymon, Kenneth I. Marro, Hadrien A. Dyvorne, James V. Miller, Daniel P. Barbodiak, Thomas L. Chenevert, Thomas E. Yankeelov, James M. Mountz & 5 others Paul E. Kinahan, Ron Kikinis, Bachir Taouli, Fiona Fennessy, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Pharmacokinetic analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) time-course data allows estimation of quantitative parameters such as K trans (rate constant for plasma/interstitium contrast agent transfer), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), and vp (plasma volume fraction). A plethora of factors in DCE-MRI data acquisition and analysis can affect accuracy and precision of these parameters and, consequently, the utility of quantitative DCE-MRI for assessing therapy response. In this multicenter data analysis challenge, DCE-MRI data acquired at one center from 10 patients with breast cancer before and after the first cycle of neo- adjuvant chemotherapy were shared and processed with 12 software tools based on the Tofts model (TM), extended TM, and Shutter-Speed model. Inputs of tumor region of interest definition, pre-contrast T1, and arterial input function were controlled to focus on the variations in parameter value and response prediction capability caused by differences in models and associated algorithms. Considerable parameter variations were observed with the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) values for K trans and vp being as high as 0.59 and 0.82, respectively. Parameter agreement improved when only algorithms based on the same model were compared, e.g., the K trans intraclass correlation coefficient increased to as high as 0.84. Agreement in parameter percentage change was much better than that in absolute parameter value, e.g., the pairwise concordance correlation coefficient improved from 0.047 (for K trans) to 0.92 (for K trans percentage change) in comparing two TM algorithms. Nearly all algorithms provided good to excellent (univariate logistic regression c-statistic value ranging from 0.8 to 1.0) early prediction of therapy response using the metrics of mean tumor K trans and kep (=K trans/ve, intravasation rate constant) after the first therapy cycle and the corresponding percentage changes. The results suggest that the interalgorithm parameter variations are largely systematic, which are not likely to significantly affect the utility of DCE-MRI for assessment of therapy response.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)153-166
Number of pages14
JournalTranslational Oncology
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Breast Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Plasma Volume
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Secondary Prevention
Contrast Media
Neoplasms
Software
Pharmacokinetics
Logistic Models

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response : A multicenter data analysis challenge. / Huang, Wei; Li, Xin; Chen, Yiyi; Li, Xia; Chang, Ming Ching; Oborski, Matthew J.; Malyarenko, Dariya I.; Muzi, Mark; Jajamovich, Guido H.; Fedorov, Andriy; Tudorica, Alina; Gupta, Sandeep N.; Laymon, Charles M.; Marro, Kenneth I.; Dyvorne, Hadrien A.; Miller, James V.; Barbodiak, Daniel P.; Chenevert, Thomas L.; Yankeelov, Thomas E.; Mountz, James M.; Kinahan, Paul E.; Kikinis, Ron; Taouli, Bachir; Fennessy, Fiona; Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree.

In: Translational Oncology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2014, p. 153-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Huang, W, Li, X, Chen, Y, Li, X, Chang, MC, Oborski, MJ, Malyarenko, DI, Muzi, M, Jajamovich, GH, Fedorov, A, Tudorica, A, Gupta, SN, Laymon, CM, Marro, KI, Dyvorne, HA, Miller, JV, Barbodiak, DP, Chenevert, TL, Yankeelov, TE, Mountz, JM, Kinahan, PE, Kikinis, R, Taouli, B, Fennessy, F & Kalpathy-Cramer, J 2014, 'Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response: A multicenter data analysis challenge', Translational Oncology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 153-166. https://doi.org/10.1593/tlo.13838
Huang, Wei ; Li, Xin ; Chen, Yiyi ; Li, Xia ; Chang, Ming Ching ; Oborski, Matthew J. ; Malyarenko, Dariya I. ; Muzi, Mark ; Jajamovich, Guido H. ; Fedorov, Andriy ; Tudorica, Alina ; Gupta, Sandeep N. ; Laymon, Charles M. ; Marro, Kenneth I. ; Dyvorne, Hadrien A. ; Miller, James V. ; Barbodiak, Daniel P. ; Chenevert, Thomas L. ; Yankeelov, Thomas E. ; Mountz, James M. ; Kinahan, Paul E. ; Kikinis, Ron ; Taouli, Bachir ; Fennessy, Fiona ; Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree. / Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response : A multicenter data analysis challenge. In: Translational Oncology. 2014 ; Vol. 7, No. 1. pp. 153-166.
@article{3b639669f12548cc93d6718fbb616c0e,
title = "Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response: A multicenter data analysis challenge",
abstract = "Pharmacokinetic analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) time-course data allows estimation of quantitative parameters such as K trans (rate constant for plasma/interstitium contrast agent transfer), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), and vp (plasma volume fraction). A plethora of factors in DCE-MRI data acquisition and analysis can affect accuracy and precision of these parameters and, consequently, the utility of quantitative DCE-MRI for assessing therapy response. In this multicenter data analysis challenge, DCE-MRI data acquired at one center from 10 patients with breast cancer before and after the first cycle of neo- adjuvant chemotherapy were shared and processed with 12 software tools based on the Tofts model (TM), extended TM, and Shutter-Speed model. Inputs of tumor region of interest definition, pre-contrast T1, and arterial input function were controlled to focus on the variations in parameter value and response prediction capability caused by differences in models and associated algorithms. Considerable parameter variations were observed with the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) values for K trans and vp being as high as 0.59 and 0.82, respectively. Parameter agreement improved when only algorithms based on the same model were compared, e.g., the K trans intraclass correlation coefficient increased to as high as 0.84. Agreement in parameter percentage change was much better than that in absolute parameter value, e.g., the pairwise concordance correlation coefficient improved from 0.047 (for K trans) to 0.92 (for K trans percentage change) in comparing two TM algorithms. Nearly all algorithms provided good to excellent (univariate logistic regression c-statistic value ranging from 0.8 to 1.0) early prediction of therapy response using the metrics of mean tumor K trans and kep (=K trans/ve, intravasation rate constant) after the first therapy cycle and the corresponding percentage changes. The results suggest that the interalgorithm parameter variations are largely systematic, which are not likely to significantly affect the utility of DCE-MRI for assessment of therapy response.",
author = "Wei Huang and Xin Li and Yiyi Chen and Xia Li and Chang, {Ming Ching} and Oborski, {Matthew J.} and Malyarenko, {Dariya I.} and Mark Muzi and Jajamovich, {Guido H.} and Andriy Fedorov and Alina Tudorica and Gupta, {Sandeep N.} and Laymon, {Charles M.} and Marro, {Kenneth I.} and Dyvorne, {Hadrien A.} and Miller, {James V.} and Barbodiak, {Daniel P.} and Chenevert, {Thomas L.} and Yankeelov, {Thomas E.} and Mountz, {James M.} and Kinahan, {Paul E.} and Ron Kikinis and Bachir Taouli and Fiona Fennessy and Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1593/tlo.13838",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "153--166",
journal = "Translational Oncology",
issn = "1936-5233",
publisher = "Neoplasia Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response

T2 - A multicenter data analysis challenge

AU - Huang, Wei

AU - Li, Xin

AU - Chen, Yiyi

AU - Li, Xia

AU - Chang, Ming Ching

AU - Oborski, Matthew J.

AU - Malyarenko, Dariya I.

AU - Muzi, Mark

AU - Jajamovich, Guido H.

AU - Fedorov, Andriy

AU - Tudorica, Alina

AU - Gupta, Sandeep N.

AU - Laymon, Charles M.

AU - Marro, Kenneth I.

AU - Dyvorne, Hadrien A.

AU - Miller, James V.

AU - Barbodiak, Daniel P.

AU - Chenevert, Thomas L.

AU - Yankeelov, Thomas E.

AU - Mountz, James M.

AU - Kinahan, Paul E.

AU - Kikinis, Ron

AU - Taouli, Bachir

AU - Fennessy, Fiona

AU - Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Pharmacokinetic analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) time-course data allows estimation of quantitative parameters such as K trans (rate constant for plasma/interstitium contrast agent transfer), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), and vp (plasma volume fraction). A plethora of factors in DCE-MRI data acquisition and analysis can affect accuracy and precision of these parameters and, consequently, the utility of quantitative DCE-MRI for assessing therapy response. In this multicenter data analysis challenge, DCE-MRI data acquired at one center from 10 patients with breast cancer before and after the first cycle of neo- adjuvant chemotherapy were shared and processed with 12 software tools based on the Tofts model (TM), extended TM, and Shutter-Speed model. Inputs of tumor region of interest definition, pre-contrast T1, and arterial input function were controlled to focus on the variations in parameter value and response prediction capability caused by differences in models and associated algorithms. Considerable parameter variations were observed with the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) values for K trans and vp being as high as 0.59 and 0.82, respectively. Parameter agreement improved when only algorithms based on the same model were compared, e.g., the K trans intraclass correlation coefficient increased to as high as 0.84. Agreement in parameter percentage change was much better than that in absolute parameter value, e.g., the pairwise concordance correlation coefficient improved from 0.047 (for K trans) to 0.92 (for K trans percentage change) in comparing two TM algorithms. Nearly all algorithms provided good to excellent (univariate logistic regression c-statistic value ranging from 0.8 to 1.0) early prediction of therapy response using the metrics of mean tumor K trans and kep (=K trans/ve, intravasation rate constant) after the first therapy cycle and the corresponding percentage changes. The results suggest that the interalgorithm parameter variations are largely systematic, which are not likely to significantly affect the utility of DCE-MRI for assessment of therapy response.

AB - Pharmacokinetic analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) time-course data allows estimation of quantitative parameters such as K trans (rate constant for plasma/interstitium contrast agent transfer), ve (extravascular extracellular volume fraction), and vp (plasma volume fraction). A plethora of factors in DCE-MRI data acquisition and analysis can affect accuracy and precision of these parameters and, consequently, the utility of quantitative DCE-MRI for assessing therapy response. In this multicenter data analysis challenge, DCE-MRI data acquired at one center from 10 patients with breast cancer before and after the first cycle of neo- adjuvant chemotherapy were shared and processed with 12 software tools based on the Tofts model (TM), extended TM, and Shutter-Speed model. Inputs of tumor region of interest definition, pre-contrast T1, and arterial input function were controlled to focus on the variations in parameter value and response prediction capability caused by differences in models and associated algorithms. Considerable parameter variations were observed with the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) values for K trans and vp being as high as 0.59 and 0.82, respectively. Parameter agreement improved when only algorithms based on the same model were compared, e.g., the K trans intraclass correlation coefficient increased to as high as 0.84. Agreement in parameter percentage change was much better than that in absolute parameter value, e.g., the pairwise concordance correlation coefficient improved from 0.047 (for K trans) to 0.92 (for K trans percentage change) in comparing two TM algorithms. Nearly all algorithms provided good to excellent (univariate logistic regression c-statistic value ranging from 0.8 to 1.0) early prediction of therapy response using the metrics of mean tumor K trans and kep (=K trans/ve, intravasation rate constant) after the first therapy cycle and the corresponding percentage changes. The results suggest that the interalgorithm parameter variations are largely systematic, which are not likely to significantly affect the utility of DCE-MRI for assessment of therapy response.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902493742&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902493742&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1593/tlo.13838

DO - 10.1593/tlo.13838

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 153

EP - 166

JO - Translational Oncology

JF - Translational Oncology

SN - 1936-5233

IS - 1

ER -