Trial reportPloS one2014
DCE-MRI of the liver: reconstruction of the arterial input function using a low dose pre-bolus contrast injection.
Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06265272 (Technical Development and Clinical Validation of a Comprehensive One-stop Shop Assessment of the Cirrhotic Liver With [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Technical Development and Clinical Validation of a Comprehensive One-stop Shop Assessment of the Cirrhotic Liver With [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) With Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Functional Treatment Planning in Patients With Advanced Hepatic Cirrhosis.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Noninvasive diagnosis of portal hypertension using gadoxetate DCE-MRI of the liver and spleen.European radiology · 2021Article
- Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) recommendations for improved precision of DWI and DCE-MRI derived biomarkers in multicenter oncology trials.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Review
- Comparison of arterial input functions measured from ultra-fast dynamic contrast enhanced MRI and dynamic contrast enhanced computed tomography in prostate cancer patients.Physics in medicine and biology · 2018Article
- Multiparametric FDG-PET/MRI of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Initial Experience.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2018Article
- Assessment of renal function using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2016Article
- Assessment of repeatability and treatment response in early phase clinical trials using DCE-MRI: comparison of parametric analysis using MR- and CT-derived arterial input functions.European radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the quality of the arterial input function (AIF) reconstructed using a dedicated pre-bolus low-dose contrast material injection imaged with a high temporal resolution and the resulting estimated liver perfusion parameters. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this IRB-approved prospective study, 24 DCE-MRI examinations were performed in 21 patients with liver disease (M/F 17/4, mean age 56 y). The examination consisted of 1.3 mL and 0.05 mmol/kg of gadobenate dimeglumine for pre-bolus and main bolus acquisitions, respectively. The concentration-curve of the abdominal aorta in the pre-bolus acquisition was used to reconstruct the AIF. AIF quality and shape parameters obtained with pre-bolus and main bolus acquisitions and the resulting estimated hepatic perfusion parameters obtained with a dual-input single compartment model were compared between the 2 methods. Test-retest reproducibility of perfusion parameters were assessed in three patients.
resultsThe quality of the pre-bolus AIF curve was significantly better than that of main bolus AIF. Shape parameters peak concentration, area under the time activity curve of gadolinium contrast at 60 s and upslope of pre-bolus AIF were all significantly higher, while full width at half maximum was significantly lower than shape parameters of main bolus AIF. Improved liver perfusion parameter reproducibility was observed using pre-bolus acquisition [coefficient of variation (CV) of 4.2%-38.7% for pre-bolus vs. 12.1-71.4% for main bolus] with the exception of distribution volume (CV of 23.6% for pre-bolus vs. 15.8% for main bolus). The CVs between pre-bolus and main bolus for the perfusion parameters were lower than 14%.
conclusionThe AIF reconstructed with pre-bolus low dose contrast injection displays better quality and shape parameters and enables improved liver perfusion parameter reproducibility, although the resulting liver perfusion parameters demonstrated no clinically significant differences between pre-bolus and main bolus acquisitions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.