Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30098044›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2018

Abdominal DCE-MRI reconstruction with deformable motion correction for liver perfusion quantification.

Adam Johansson, James M Balter, Yue Cao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. PET/CT-Based Absorbed Dose Maps inJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Bulk motion-compensated DCE-MRI for functional imaging of kidneys in newborns.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adam JohanssonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
James M BalterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Yue CaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.

Funding

TREATMENT VERIFICATION AND TREATMENT PLAN REFINEMENTP01CA059827 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI KESSLER, MARC LEWIS, LAWRENCE, THEODORE S · 1993 to 2018
$37.9M
Optimizing MRI for Radiation Therapy Treatment PlanningR01EB016079 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BALTER, JAMES M, CAO, YUE · 2013 to 2022
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA059827NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB016079NIH/NCI P01 CA059827
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAbdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI suffers from motion-induced artifacts that can blur images and distort contrast-agent uptake curves. For liver perfusion analysis, image reconstruction with rigid-body motion correction (RMC) can restore distorted portal-venous input functions (PVIF) to higher peak amplitudes. However, RMC cannot correct for liver deformation during breathing. We present a reconstruction algorithm with deformable motion correction (DMC) that enables correction of breathing-induced deformation in the whole abdomen.

methodsRaw data from a golden-angle stack-of-stars gradient-echo sequence were collected for 54 DCE-MRI examinations of 31 patients. For each examination, a respiratory motion signal was extracted from the data and used to reconstruct 21 breathing states from inhale to exhale. The states were aligned with deformable image registration to the end-exhale state. Resulting deformation fields were used to correct back-projection images before reconstruction with view sharing. Images with DMC were compared to uncorrected images and images with RMC.

resultsDMC significantly increased the PVIF peak amplitude compared to uncorrected images (P << 0.01, mean increase: 8%) but not compared to RMC. The increased PVIF peak amplitude significantly decreased estimated portal-venous perfusion in the liver (P << 0.01, mean decrease: 8 ml/(100 ml·min)). DMC also removed artifacts in perfusion maps at the liver edge and reduced blurring of liver tumors for some patients.

conclusionsDCE-MRI reconstruction with DMC can restore motion-distorted uptake curves in the abdomen and remove motion artifacts from reconstructed images and parameter maps but does not significantly improve perfusion quantification in the liver compared to RMC.

Indexed as

ArtifactsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMovementRegional Blood FlowAbdomenAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLiverMaleMiddle Agedcontrast agentDCE MRIdeformable image registrationlivermotion artifactsmotion correctionMRIperfusion

Identifiers

PMID30098044
PMCPMC6181780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.