Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T21:44:57.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - MR perfusion imaging in oncology: applications outside the brain

from Section 2 - Clinical applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

By
James P. B. O'Connor  and
Geoff J. M. Parker
Edited by
Peter B. Barker ,
Xavier Golay  and
Gregory Zaharchuk
Peter B. Barker
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Xavier Golay
Affiliation:
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London
Gregory Zaharchuk
Affiliation:
Stanford University Medical Center
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The MRI-based methods for measuring perfusion and related vascular characteristics that are described in this book have multiple research and clinical applications in oncology. The oncological applications specific to the brain are detailed in Chapter 11. This current chapter provides an overview of oncology applications outside the brain, covering both current clinical practice and research techniques. The technical aspects of image acquisition and analysis are only alluded to briefly, except where these details form a critical component of understanding the study data and their interpretation.

Various perfusion MRI techniques are performed in oncology imaging. Outside the brain, the majority of applications are based on T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, although dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) and arterial spin labeling (ASL) are now used increasingly often in research studies. In this section, all ‘MR perfusion imaging’ refers to T1-weighted DCE-based techniques unless explicitly stated otherwise. It is important to appreciate that T1-weighted DCE-MRI is an umbrella term that covers many similar acquisition and analysis approaches, which may have important differences in their practical application and for comparison between studies.

Type
Chapter
Information
Clinical Perfusion MRI
Techniques and Applications
 , pp. 238 - 254
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dobson, MJ, Carrington, BM, Collins, CD, et al. The assessment of irradiated bladder carcinoma using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Clin Radiol 2001;56:94–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jemal, A, Bray, F, Center, MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, E, Rutt, BK, Lee, TY.Temporal sampling requirements for the tracer kinetics modeling of breast disease. Magn Reson Imaging 1998;16:1057–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbull, LW.Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis and management of breast cancer. NMR Biomed 2009;22:28–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, CK, Mielcareck, P, Klaschik, S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?Radiology 1999;211:101–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kety, SS.The theory and applications of the exchange of inert gas at the lungs and tissues. Pharmacol Rev 1951;3:1–41.Google Scholar
Szabo, BK, Aspelin, P, Wiberg, MK.Neural network approach to the segmentation and classification of dynamic magnetic resonance images of the breast: comparison with empiric and quantitative kinetic parameters. Acad Radiol 2004;11:1344–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, DL, Drew, PJ, Mussurakis, S, Monson, JR, Horsman, A.Microvessel density of invasive breast cancer assessed by dynamic Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:461–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knopp, MV, Weiss, E, Sinn, HP, et al. Pathophysiologic basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:260–6.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erguvan-Dogan, B, Whitman, GJ, Kushwaha, AC, Phelps, MJ, Dempsey, PJ.BI-RADS-MRI: a primer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:W152–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimauchi, A, Jansen, SA, Abe, H, et al. Breast cancers not detected at MRI: review of false-negative lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:1674–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benndorf, M, Baltzer, PA, Vag, T, et al. Breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography: Does it really suffer from low specificity? A retrospective analysis stratified by mammographic BI-RADS classes. Acta Radiol 2010;51:715–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Khouli, RH, Macura, KJ, Jacobs, MA, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: quantitative method for kinetic curve type assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:W295–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robson, M, Offit, K.Clinical practice. Management of an inherited predisposition to breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:154–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Easton, DF, Pooley, KA, Dunning, AM, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature 2007;447:1087–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leach, MO.Breast cancer screening in women at high risk using MRI. NMR Biomed 2009;22:17–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kriege, M, Brekelmans, CT, Boetes, C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:427–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leach, MO, Boggis, CR, Dixon, AK, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005;365:1769–78.Google Scholar
NICE. Familial Breast cancer: The Classification and Care of Women at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Care – Update. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2006. Available from: (accessed January 9, 2013).Google Scholar
Turnbull, LW, Brown, SR, Olivier, C, et al. Multicentre randomised controlled trial examining the cost-effectiveness of contrast-enhanced high field magnetic resonance imaging in women with primary breast cancer scheduled for wide local excision (COMICE). Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, C, Padhani, AR, Leach, MO.Assessing changes in tumour vascular function using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. NMR Biomed 2002;15:154–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martincich, L, Montemurro, F, De Rosa, G, et al. Monitoring response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004;83:67–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baar, J, Silverman, P, Lyons, J, et al. A vasculature-targeting regimen of preoperative docetaxel with or without bevacizumab for locally advanced breast cancer: impact on angiogenic biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:3583–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, SP, Makris, A, Beresford, MJ, et al. Use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to predict survival in patients with primary breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology 2011;260:68–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, MC, Yuan, JM.Environmental factors and risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004;127:S72–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennecke, H, Yerushalmi, R, Woods, R, et al. Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3271–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husband, JE, Reznek, RH.Imaging in Oncology. London: Taylor & Francis, 2004.Google Scholar
Eisenhauer, EA, Therasse, P, Bogaerts, J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koh, DM, Padhani, AR.Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: parametric assessments beyond morphology. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2010;18:565–85, xii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edge, SB, Byrd, DR, Compton, CC, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, 5th edn. New York: Springer, 2010.Google Scholar
Silva, AC, Evans, JM, McCullough, AE, et al. MR imaging of hypervascular liver masses: a review of current techniques. Radiographics 2009;29:385–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semelka, RC, Worawattanakul, S, Noone, TC, et al. Chemotherapy-treated liver metastases mimicking hemangiomas on MR images. Abdom Imaging 1999;24:378–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abdullah, SS, Pialat, JB, Wiart, M, et al. Characterization of hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis by means of perfusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:390–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miles, KA, Hayball, MP, Dixon, AK.Functional images of hepatic perfusion obtained with dynamic CT. Radiology 1993;188:405–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Totman, JJ, O'Gorman, RL, Kane, PA, Karani, JB.Comparison of the hepatic perfusion index measured with gadolinium-enhanced volumetric MRI in controls and in patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Radiol 2005;78:105–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoeks, CM, Barentsz, JO, Hambrock, T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011;261:46–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, L, Ahmed, HU, Allen, C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59:477–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
deSouza, NM, Sala, E.Imaging: standardizing the use of functional MRI in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2011;8:127–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, DL, Roberts, C, Parker, GJ, Logue, JP, Hutchinson, CE.Prostate cancer: evaluation of vascular characteristics with dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging–initial experience. Radiology 2004;233:709–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riches, SF, Payne, GS, Morgan, VA, et al. MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: combined apparent diffusion coefficient, metabolite ratio, and vascular parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:1583–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alonzi, R, Taylor, NJ, Stirling, JJ, et al. Reproducibility and correlation between quantitative and semiquantitative dynamic and intrinsic susceptibility-weighted MRI parameters in the benign and malignant human prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:155–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langer, DL, van der Kwast, TH, Evans, AJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with multi-parametric MRI: logistic regression analysis of quantitative T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30:327–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delongchamps, NB, Rouanne, M, Flam, T, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int 2011;107:1411–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Futterer, JJ, Heijmink, SW, Scheenen, TW, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2006;241:449–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hambrock, T, Somford, DM, Huisman, HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011;259:453–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NIH BDWG. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Therasse, P, Arbuck, SG, Eisenhauer, EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1979.Google Scholar
Choi, H, Charnsangavej, C, Faria, SC, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1753–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheson, BD, Pfistner, B, Juweid, ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:579–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, JP, Jackson, A, Asselin, MC, et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers in the clinical development of targeted therapeutics: current and future perspectives. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:766–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michaelis, LC, Ratain, MJ.Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat Rev Cancer 2006;6:409–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, JPB, Jackson, A, Parker, GJM, Roberts, C, Jayson, GC.Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical trials of antivascular therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012;9:167–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wedam, SB, Low, JA, Yang, SX, et al. Antiangiogenic and antitumor effects of bevacizumab in patients with inflammatory and locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:769–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, SP, Taylor, NJ, Mehta, S, et al. Evaluating the early effects of anti-angiogenic treatment in human breast cancer with intrinsic susceptibility-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI: initial observations. Proc Intl Soc Magn Reson Med, Montreal, Canada, 2011;342.Google Scholar
O'Connor, JP, Carano, RA, Clamp, AR, et al. Quantifying antivascular effects of monoclonal antibodies to vascular endothelial growth factor: insights from imaging. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:6674–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barboriak, DP, DesJardins, A, Rich, J, et al. Treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme with bevacizumab and irinotecan leads to rapid decreases in tumor plasma volume and Ktrans. RSNA 2007;93:SST09–05.Google Scholar
Gutin, PH, Iwamoto, FM, Beal, K, et al. Safety and efficacy of bevacizumab with hypofractionated stereotactic irradiation for recurrent malignant gliomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75:156–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, W, Kreisl, TN, Solomon, J, et al. Acute effects of bevacizumab on glioblastoma vascularity assessed with DCE-MRI and relation to patient survival. Proc Intl Soc Magn Reson Med, Montreal, Canada, 2009;282.Google Scholar
Gururangan, S, Chi, SN, Young Poussaint, T, et al. Lack of efficacy of bevacizumab plus irinotecan in children with recurrent malignant glioma and diffuse brainstem glioma: a Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3069–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreisl, TN, Zhang, W, Odia, Y, et al. A phase II trial of single-agent bevacizumab in patients with recurrent anaplastic glioma. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:1143–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, AB, Cohen, EI, Ocean, A, et al. Phase II trial evaluating the clinical and biologic effects of bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2992–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willett, CG, Duda, DG, di Tomaso, E, et al. Efficacy, safety, and biomarkers of neoadjuvant bevacizumab, radiation therapy, and fluorouracil in rectal cancer: a multidisciplinary phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3020–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drevs, J, Siegert, P, Medinger, M, et al. Phase I clinical study of AZD2171, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor signaling inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3045–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batchelor, TT, Sorensen, AG, di Tomaso, E, et al. AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Cell 2007;11:83–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, CL, O'Connor, JP, Roberts, C, et al. A two-part phase II study of cediranib in patients with advanced solid tumours: the effect of food on single-dose pharmacokinetics and an evaluation of safety, efficacy and imaging pharmacodynamics. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2011;68:631–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahn, OM, Yang, C, Medved, M, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging pharmacodynamic biomarker study of sorafenib in metastatic renal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4572–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flaherty, KT, Rosen, MA, Heitjan, DF, et al. Pilot study of DCE-MRI to predict progression-free survival with sorafenib therapy in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Biol Ther 2008;7:496–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, AX, Sahani, DV, Duda, DG, et al. Efficacy, safety, and potential biomarkers of sunitinib monotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3027–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machiels, JP, Henry, S, Zanetta, S, et al. Phase II study of sunitinib in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: GORTEC 2006–01. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:21–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurwitz, HI, Dowlati, A, Saini, S, et al. Phase I trial of pazopanib in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:4220–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galbraith, SM, Maxwell, RJ, Lodge, MA, et al. Combretastatin A4 phosphate has tumor antivascular activity in rat and man as demonstrated by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2831–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, JP, Rosen, M, Sun, W, et al. Phase I trial of the antivascular agent combretastatin A4 phosphate on a 5-day schedule to patients with cancer: magnetic resonance imaging evidence for altered tumor blood flow. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4428–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nathan, P, Zwifel, M, Padhani, AR, et al. Phase 1 trial of combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P) in combination with bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:3428–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Bazelaire, C, Alsop, DC, George, D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-measured blood flow change after antiangiogenic therapy with PTK787/ZK 222584 correlates with clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:5548–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenchel, M, Konaktchieva, M, Weisel, K, et al. Early response assessment in patients with multiple myeloma during anti-angiogenic therapy using arterial spin labelling: first clinical results. Eur Radiol 2010;20:2899–906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, B, Thomas, AL, Drevs, J, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for the pharmacological response of PTK787/ZK 222584, an inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and liver metastases: results from two phase I studies. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3955–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, PS, Roberts, C, Whitcher, B, et al. Vascular response of hepatocellular carcinoma to pazopanib measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: pharmacokinetic and clinical activity correlations. Proc Intl Soc Magn Reson Med, Stockholm, Sweden 2010;2720.Google Scholar
Mross, K, Drevs, J, Muller, M, et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of PTK/ZK, a multiple VEGF receptor inhibitor, in patients with liver metastases from solid tumours. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:1291–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, AL, Morgan, B, Horsfield, MA, et al. Phase I study of the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PTK787/ZK 222584 administered twice daily in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4162–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonker, DJ, Rosen, LS, Sawyer, MB, et al. A phase I study to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a dual VEGFR and FGFR inhibitor, brivanib, in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1413–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akerley, WL, Schabel, M, Morrell, G, et al. A randomized phase 2 trial of combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P) in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin to evaluate safety and efficacy in subjects with advanced imageable malignancies. J Clin Oncol (Meetings Abstracts) 2007;25(18S):14060.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, A, Padhani, A, Hayes, C, et al. A phase I study of the angiogenesis inhibitor SU5416 (semaxanib) in solid tumours, incorporating dynamic contrast MR pharmacodynamic end points. Br J Cancer 2005;93:876–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, KD, Trigo, JM, Wheeler, C, et al. A multicenter phase II trial of ZD6474, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:3369–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hecht, JR, Trarbach, T, Hainsworth, JD, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study of first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy plus PTK787/ZK 222584, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, in patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1997–2003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, LM.Antiangiogenic therapy: more promise and, yet again, more questions. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3897–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, JP, Jackson, A, Parker, GJ, Jayson, GC.DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Br J Cancer 2007;96:189–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjarnason, GA, Williams, R, Hudson, JM, et al. Microbubble ultrasound (DCE-US) compared to DCE-MRI and DCE-CT for the assessment of vascular response to sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). J Clin Oncol (Meetings Abstracts) 2011;29(S):4627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faria, SC, Ng, CS, Hess, KR, et al. CT quantification of effects of thalidomide in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:378–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yopp, AC, Schwartz, LH, Kemeny, N, et al. Antiangiogenic therapy for primary liver cancer: correlation of changes in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with tissue hypoxia markers and clinical response. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:2192–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillengass, J, Wasser, K, Delorme, S, et al. Lumbar bone marrow microcirculation measurements from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is a predictor of event-free survival in progressive multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:475–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, A, O'Connor, JP, Parker, GJ, Jayson, GC.Imaging tumor vascular heterogeneity and angiogenesis using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:3449–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karahaliou, A, Vassiou, K, Arikidis, NS, et al. Assessing heterogeneity of lesion enhancement kinetics in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer diagnosis. Br J Radiol 2010; 83:296–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, JP, Rose, CJ, Jackson, A, et al. DCE-MRI biomarkers of tumour heterogeneity predict CRC liver metastasis shrinkage following bevacizumab and FOLFOX-6. Br J Cancer 2011;105:139–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Checkley, D, Tessier, JJ, Kendrew, J, Waterton, JC, Wedge, SR.Use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to evaluate acute treatment with ZD6474, a VEGF signalling inhibitor, in PC-3 prostate tumours. Br J Cancer 2003;89:1889–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, LR, Barck, KH, Go, MA, et al. Quantification of viable tumor microvascular characteristics by multispectral analysis. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:64–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buonaccorsi, GA, Rose, CJ, O'Connor, JP, et al. Cross-visit tumor sub-segmentation and registration with outlier rejection for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI time series data. Lect Notes Comp Sci 2010;6363:121–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×