基于對比劑劑量的磁共振動態(tài)增強掃描時間信號曲線及半定量參數(shù)變化的研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-23 09:06
【摘要】：目的：探究對比劑劑量是否會造成大鼠Walker256乳腺癌模型核磁共振動態(tài)增強掃描(MR-DCE)時間信號曲線(TIC)類型及半定量參數(shù)的改變,以及確定評估化療療效較為適當?shù)膮?shù)。 材料和方法：建立穩(wěn)定的大鼠Walker256乳腺癌模型,隨機分成三組,每組4只,使用Bruker Pharmascan7T(小動物磁共振掃描儀)對模型大鼠進行MR平掃,并在注入對比劑前后均進行DCE掃描(注藥前重復2次,注藥后重復39次；對比劑劑量第一組為0.2mmol/Kg,第二組為0.3mmol/Kg,第三組為0.5mmol/Kg),觀察腫瘤在MR平掃序列上表現(xiàn),描繪各組平均TIC,觀察曲線類型及計算半定量參數(shù)(早期增強參數(shù)：包括首過強化率(Efirst)和首過強化速率(Vfirst);峰值參數(shù)：包括強化峰值(SImax)、達峰值時間(Tpeak)、最大強化率(Emax)、最大強化速率(Vmax);流出參數(shù)：包括最大排泄率(Ewash)、最大排泄速率(Vwash)、信號增強比(SER)及流出斜率(Slopewash)。根據(jù)數(shù)據(jù)是否符合方差齊性,利用方差分析(單因素ANOVA)和非參數(shù)秩和檢驗(Kruskal-Wallis H檢驗)比較強化前信號值(SIpre)和各半定量參數(shù)是否在三個劑量組間存在差異。 結果：(1)腫瘤在T1WI上表現(xiàn)為等信號,在T2WI上表現(xiàn)為高信號或以高信號為主的混雜信號,強化后腫瘤呈明顯強化效應。12只大鼠腫瘤實質(zhì)部位的DCE-MRI TIC類型均為Ⅲ型,TIC類型不因注入對比劑劑量的不同而產(chǎn)生差異,均表現(xiàn)為流出型曲線。 (2) SIpre在三個劑量組之間無統(tǒng)計學差異(F=0.720,P=0.513)。 (3)不同對比劑劑量組在Efirst和Vfirst之間的差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(F=16.952, P=0.001; F=69.483, P=0.000)。Efirst及Vfirst三組兩兩比較均具有統(tǒng)計學意義。劑量0.2mmol/Kg與0.3mmol/Kg相比,Efirst (P=0.010), Vfirst(P=0.000)；劑量0.2mmol/Kg與0.5mmol/Kg相比,Efirst (P=0.000), Vfirst(P=0.000)；注入劑量0.3mmol/Kg與0.5mmol/Kg相比,Efirst (P=0.031), Vfirst (P=0.002)。 (4)不同對比劑劑量組在SImax和Emax之間的差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(F=54.838, P=0.000; F=12.510, P=0.003)。SImax三組兩兩比較均具有統(tǒng)計學差異(P=0.035; P=0.000; P=0.000)。Emax三組兩兩比較,在劑量0.2mmol/Kg與0.5mmol/Kg相比及0.3mmol/Kg與0.5mmol/Kg相比時存在差異(P=0.001；P=0.005),劑量0.2mmol/Kg與0.3mmol/Kg相比,兩者之間的差異不具有統(tǒng)計學意義(P=0.334)。不同對比劑劑量在Tpeak和Vmax之間的差異不具有統(tǒng)計學意義(F=0.065, P=0.937; F=1.505, P=0.273)。 (5)不同對比劑劑量在Ewash和SER之間的差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(F=5.248,P=0.031; F=9.733, P=0.006)。 Ewash兩兩比較,劑量0.2mmol/Kg與0.5mmol/Kg相比差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(P=0.010),其他均無統(tǒng)計學差異。SER兩兩比較,劑量0.2mmol/Kg與0.5mmol/Kg相比和0.3mmol/Kg與0.5mmol/Kg比差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(P=0.002；P=0.041),其他無統(tǒng)計學差異。不同對比劑劑量在Vwash之間的差異不具有統(tǒng)計學意義(χ2=1.423,P=0.319)。三組劑量的平均信號值與峰值過后掃描次數(shù)之間均具有高度負線性相關(r=-0.972,P=0.000; r=-0.971, P=0.000; r=-0.989, P=0.000)。對比劑劑量的不同在三組回歸方斜率(Slopewash)之間的差異不具有統(tǒng)計學意義(F=1.654, P=0.244)。 結論：時間信號曲線的類型及Tpeak、Vmax、Vwash及Slopewash均不易受劑量的影響,對監(jiān)測新輔助化療療效的意義更為巨大,可使不同醫(yī)療中心的動態(tài)增強掃描數(shù)據(jù)具有一定的可比性。
[Abstract]:AIM: To investigate whether the dose of contrast agent can change the type of time signal curve (TIC) and semi-quantitative parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MR-DCE) in Walker 256 breast cancer rat model, and to determine the appropriate parameters for evaluating the efficacy of chemotherapy.
Materials and Methods: A stable rat model of Walker 256 breast cancer was established and randomly divided into three groups. Four rats in each group were scanned with Bruker Pharmascan 7T (Small Animal Magnetic Resonance Scanner). DCE scanning was performed before and after injection of contrast medium (repeating twice before injection, repeating 39 times after injection; 0.2 mm in contrast medium dose group 1). Ol/Kg, 0.3 mmol/Kg in the second group and 0.5 mmol/Kg in the third group. The MR plain scan sequences of the tumors were observed, the mean TIC of each group was depicted, the curve types were observed and semi-quantitative parameters were calculated (early enhancement parameters: including first pass enhancement rate (Efirst) and first pass enhancement rate (Vfirst); peak parameters: including peak enhancement (SImax), peak time (Tpeak time). Outflow parameters: including maximum excretion rate (Ewash), maximum excretion rate (Vwash), signal enhancement ratio (SER) and outflow slope (Slopewash). Enhancement was compared by variance analysis (ANOVA) and non-parametric rank sum test (Kruskal-Wallis H test) based on whether the data conformed to the homogeneity of variance. Whether the pre signal value (SIpre) and the semi quantitative parameters were different between the three dose groups.
Results: (1) Tumors on T1WI showed iso-signal, hyper-signal or hyper-signal mixed signal on T2WI, and the enhanced tumor showed obvious enhancement effect. Twelve rats showed type III of DCE-MRI TIC in tumor parenchyma. The type of TIC did not differ with the dose of contrast medium, but showed effluent curve.
(2) there was no significant difference in SIpre between three dose groups (F=0.720, P=0.513).
(3) The difference between Efirst and Vfirst was statistically significant (F = 16.952, P = 0.001; F = 69.483, P = 0.000). Efirst and Vfirst were statistically significant. Compared with 0.3 mmol/kg, Efirst (P = 0.010), Vfirst (P = 0.000) and 0.2 mmol/kg, Efirst (P = 0.0.0.0.0). 00), Vfirst (P=0.000); injection dose 0.3mmol/Kg compared with 0.5mmol/Kg, Efirst (P=0.031), Vfirst (P=0.002).
(4) Significant difference was found between the two groups in different doses of contrast medium (F = 54.838, P = 0.000; F = 12.510, P = 0.003). There was significant difference between the two groups in SImax (P = 0.035; P = 0.000; P = 0.000). There was significant difference between the three groups in Emax (0.2 mmol/Kg and 0.5 mmol/Kg) and between 0.3 mmol/Kg and 0.5 mmol/Kg. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.001; P = 0.005) between 0.2 mmol/kg and 0.3 mmol/kg (P = 0.334). The difference between Tpeak and Vmax was not statistically significant (F = 0.065, P = 0.937; F = 1.505, P = 0.273).
(5) There were significant differences in the dosage of Ewash and SER between the two groups (F = 5.248, P = 0.031; F = 9.733, P = 0.006). There was significant difference between the dosage of 0.2 mmol/kg and 0.5 mmol/kg (P = 0.010) in Ewash and 0.5 mmol/kg (P = 0.010), but no significant difference was found in other groups. The difference of mmol/kg ratio was statistically significant (P = 0.002; P = 0.041), but no significant difference was found among the others. There was no significant difference in Vwash between different dose groups (2 = 1.423, P = 0.319). There was a highly negative linear correlation between the mean signal value of the three doses and the number of post-peak scans (r = - 0.972, P = 0.000; r = - 0.971, P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in Slopewash between the three groups (F = 1.654, P = 0.244).
Conclusion: The type of time signal curve and Tpeak, Vmax, Vwash and Slopewash are not susceptible to dose. It is of great significance to monitor the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and can make the dynamic enhanced scan data of different medical centers comparable.
【學位授予單位】：天津醫(yī)科大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：R737.9;R445.2
本文編號：2198567
[Abstract]:AIM: To investigate whether the dose of contrast agent can change the type of time signal curve (TIC) and semi-quantitative parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MR-DCE) in Walker 256 breast cancer rat model, and to determine the appropriate parameters for evaluating the efficacy of chemotherapy.
Materials and Methods: A stable rat model of Walker 256 breast cancer was established and randomly divided into three groups. Four rats in each group were scanned with Bruker Pharmascan 7T (Small Animal Magnetic Resonance Scanner). DCE scanning was performed before and after injection of contrast medium (repeating twice before injection, repeating 39 times after injection; 0.2 mm in contrast medium dose group 1). Ol/Kg, 0.3 mmol/Kg in the second group and 0.5 mmol/Kg in the third group. The MR plain scan sequences of the tumors were observed, the mean TIC of each group was depicted, the curve types were observed and semi-quantitative parameters were calculated (early enhancement parameters: including first pass enhancement rate (Efirst) and first pass enhancement rate (Vfirst); peak parameters: including peak enhancement (SImax), peak time (Tpeak time). Outflow parameters: including maximum excretion rate (Ewash), maximum excretion rate (Vwash), signal enhancement ratio (SER) and outflow slope (Slopewash). Enhancement was compared by variance analysis (ANOVA) and non-parametric rank sum test (Kruskal-Wallis H test) based on whether the data conformed to the homogeneity of variance. Whether the pre signal value (SIpre) and the semi quantitative parameters were different between the three dose groups.
Results: (1) Tumors on T1WI showed iso-signal, hyper-signal or hyper-signal mixed signal on T2WI, and the enhanced tumor showed obvious enhancement effect. Twelve rats showed type III of DCE-MRI TIC in tumor parenchyma. The type of TIC did not differ with the dose of contrast medium, but showed effluent curve.
(2) there was no significant difference in SIpre between three dose groups (F=0.720, P=0.513).
(3) The difference between Efirst and Vfirst was statistically significant (F = 16.952, P = 0.001; F = 69.483, P = 0.000). Efirst and Vfirst were statistically significant. Compared with 0.3 mmol/kg, Efirst (P = 0.010), Vfirst (P = 0.000) and 0.2 mmol/kg, Efirst (P = 0.0.0.0.0). 00), Vfirst (P=0.000); injection dose 0.3mmol/Kg compared with 0.5mmol/Kg, Efirst (P=0.031), Vfirst (P=0.002).
(4) Significant difference was found between the two groups in different doses of contrast medium (F = 54.838, P = 0.000; F = 12.510, P = 0.003). There was significant difference between the two groups in SImax (P = 0.035; P = 0.000; P = 0.000). There was significant difference between the three groups in Emax (0.2 mmol/Kg and 0.5 mmol/Kg) and between 0.3 mmol/Kg and 0.5 mmol/Kg. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.001; P = 0.005) between 0.2 mmol/kg and 0.3 mmol/kg (P = 0.334). The difference between Tpeak and Vmax was not statistically significant (F = 0.065, P = 0.937; F = 1.505, P = 0.273).
(5) There were significant differences in the dosage of Ewash and SER between the two groups (F = 5.248, P = 0.031; F = 9.733, P = 0.006). There was significant difference between the dosage of 0.2 mmol/kg and 0.5 mmol/kg (P = 0.010) in Ewash and 0.5 mmol/kg (P = 0.010), but no significant difference was found in other groups. The difference of mmol/kg ratio was statistically significant (P = 0.002; P = 0.041), but no significant difference was found among the others. There was no significant difference in Vwash between different dose groups (2 = 1.423, P = 0.319). There was a highly negative linear correlation between the mean signal value of the three doses and the number of post-peak scans (r = - 0.972, P = 0.000; r = - 0.971, P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in Slopewash between the three groups (F = 1.654, P = 0.244).
Conclusion: The type of time signal curve and Tpeak, Vmax, Vwash and Slopewash are not susceptible to dose. It is of great significance to monitor the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and can make the dynamic enhanced scan data of different medical centers comparable.
【學位授予單位】：天津醫(yī)科大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：R737.9;R445.2
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 李敏;金真;李功杰;張磊;曾亞偉;李科;崔彥;張建忠;;乳腺動態(tài)增強MRI參數(shù)與腫瘤血管的相關性及其鑒別診斷價值[J];磁共振成像;2010年01期
2 谷爽;蘇天昊;靳二虎;梁宇霆;馬大慶;;乳腺MRI動態(tài)增強掃描I型曲線的臨床意義[J];磁共振成像;2011年03期
3 尹波;劉莉;鄒麗萍;耿道穎;;乳腺癌新輔助化療前后DCE-MRI血流動力學與病理學對照[J];放射學實踐;2011年10期
4 王瓊;;89例乳頭溢液的診治[J];國際醫(yī)藥衛(wèi)生導報;2006年12期
5 邱龍華;顧雅佳;唐峰;彭衛(wèi)軍;毛健;楊文濤;;大鼠乳腺癌模型建立及其進行磁共振成像的可行性[J];中國醫(yī)學計算機成像雜志;2008年03期
6 黃德健;張健;孫勝祿;孔銘;方志軍;王小寧;殷志琦;倪以成;;大鼠肝移植腫瘤模型的影像學研究[J];藥物生物技術;2011年01期
7 劉佩芳,鮑潤賢,牛昀,于詠;乳腺良惡性病變動態(tài)增強MRI表現(xiàn)特征與血管生成相關性的初步研究[J];中華放射學雜志;2002年11期
8 李潔;張曉鵬;陸愛萍;歐陽濤;曹];孫應實;唐磊;;乳腺癌新輔助化療后動態(tài)增強MRI表現(xiàn)與病理反應性相關性研究[J];中華放射學雜志;2007年11期
9 趙林;何翠菊;陳莉;張斌;羅婭紅;張齊;王聰;張鑫豐;馬特;龍飛;張強;徐宏;;動態(tài)增強MRI和擴散加權成像在乳腺癌新輔助化療早期預測療效的價值[J];中國腫瘤;2010年05期
10 劉文清;徐玲;劉蔭華;;動態(tài)增強MRI對乳腺癌患者術前化療療效評價及相關因素分析:附31例報道[J];中華乳腺病雜志(電子版);2011年03期
，本文編號：2198567
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/yixuelunwen/fangshe/2198567.html
最近更新
教材專著
