基于对比剂剂量的磁共振动态增强扫描时间信号曲线及半定量参数变化的研究
发布时间：2018-08-23 09:06
【摘要】：目的：探究对比剂剂量是否会造成大鼠Walker256乳腺癌模型核磁共振动态增强扫描(MR-DCE)时间信号曲线(TIC)类型及半定量参数的改变,以及确定评估化疗疗效较为适当的参数。 材料和方法：建立稳定的大鼠Walker256乳腺癌模型,随机分成三组,每组4只,使用Bruker Pharmascan7T(小动物磁共振扫描仪)对模型大鼠进行MR平扫,并在注入对比剂前后均进行DCE扫描(注药前重复2次,注药后重复39次；对比剂剂量第一组为0.2mmol/Kg,第二组为0.3mmol/Kg,第三组为0.5mmol/Kg),观察肿瘤在MR平扫序列上表现,描绘各组平均TIC,观察曲线类型及计算半定量参数(早期增强参数：包括首过强化率(Efirst)和首过强化速率(Vfirst);峰值参数：包括强化峰值(SImax)、达峰值时间(Tpeak)、最大强化率(Emax)、最大强化速率(Vmax);流出参数：包括最大排泄率(Ewash)、最大排泄速率(Vwash)、信号增强比(SER)及流出斜率(Slopewash)。根据数据是否符合方差齐性,利用方差分析(单因素ANOVA)和非参数秩和检验(Kruskal-Wallis H检验)比较强化前信号值(SIpre)和各半定量参数是否在三个剂量组间存在差异。 结果：(1)肿瘤在T1WI上表现为等信号,在T2WI上表现为高信号或以高信号为主的混杂信号,强化后肿瘤呈明显强化效应。12只大鼠肿瘤实质部位的DCE-MRI TIC类型均为Ⅲ型,TIC类型不因注入对比剂剂量的不同而产生差异,均表现为流出型曲线。 (2) SIpre在三个剂量组之间无统计学差异(F=0.720,P=0.513)。 (3)不同对比剂剂量组在Efirst和Vfirst之间的差异具有统计学意义(F=16.952, P=0.001; F=69.483, P=0.000)。Efirst及Vfirst三组两两比较均具有统计学意义。剂量0.2mmol/Kg与0.3mmol/Kg相比,Efirst (P=0.010), Vfirst(P=0.000)；剂量0.2mmol/Kg与0.5mmol/Kg相比,Efirst (P=0.000), Vfirst(P=0.000)；注入剂量0.3mmol/Kg与0.5mmol/Kg相比,Efirst (P=0.031), Vfirst (P=0.002)。 (4)不同对比剂剂量组在SImax和Emax之间的差异具有统计学意义(F=54.838, P=0.000; F=12.510, P=0.003)。SImax三组两两比较均具有统计学差异(P=0.035; P=0.000; P=0.000)。Emax三组两两比较,在剂量0.2mmol/Kg与0.5mmol/Kg相比及0.3mmol/Kg与0.5mmol/Kg相比时存在差异(P=0.001；P=0.005),剂量0.2mmol/Kg与0.3mmol/Kg相比,两者之间的差异不具有统计学意义(P=0.334)。不同对比剂剂量在Tpeak和Vmax之间的差异不具有统计学意义(F=0.065, P=0.937; F=1.505, P=0.273)。 (5)不同对比剂剂量在Ewash和SER之间的差异具有统计学意义(F=5.248,P=0.031; F=9.733, P=0.006)。 Ewash两两比较,剂量0.2mmol/Kg与0.5mmol/Kg相比差异具有统计学意义(P=0.010),其他均无统计学差异。SER两两比较,剂量0.2mmol/Kg与0.5mmol/Kg相比和0.3mmol/Kg与0.5mmol/Kg比差异具有统计学意义(P=0.002；P=0.041),其他无统计学差异。不同对比剂剂量在Vwash之间的差异不具有统计学意义(χ2=1.423,P=0.319)。三组剂量的平均信号值与峰值过后扫描次数之间均具有高度负线性相关(r=-0.972,P=0.000; r=-0.971, P=0.000; r=-0.989, P=0.000)。对比剂剂量的不同在三组回归方斜率(Slopewash)之间的差异不具有统计学意义(F=1.654, P=0.244)。 结论：时间信号曲线的类型及Tpeak、Vmax、Vwash及Slopewash均不易受剂量的影响,对监测新辅助化疗疗效的意义更为巨大,可使不同医疗中心的动态增强扫描数据具有一定的可比性。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：天津医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R737.9;R445.2
本文编号：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.
【学位授予单位】：天津医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R737.9;R445.2
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 李敏;金真;李功杰;张磊;曾亚伟;李科;崔彦;张建忠;;乳腺动态增强MRI参数与肿瘤血管的相关性及其鉴别诊断价值[J];磁共振成像;2010年01期
2 谷爽;苏天昊;靳二虎;梁宇霆;马大庆;;乳腺MRI动态增强扫描I型曲线的临床意义[J];磁共振成像;2011年03期
3 尹波;刘莉;邹丽萍;耿道颖;;乳腺癌新辅助化疗前后DCE-MRI血流动力学与病理学对照[J];放射学实践;2011年10期
4 王琼;;89例乳头溢液的诊治[J];国际医药卫生导报;2006年12期
5 邱龙华;顾雅佳;唐峰;彭卫军;毛健;杨文涛;;大鼠乳腺癌模型建立及其进行磁共振成像的可行性[J];中国医学计算机成像杂志;2008年03期
6 黄德健;张健;孙胜禄;孔铭;方志军;王小宁;殷志琦;倪以成;;大鼠肝移植肿瘤模型的影像学研究[J];药物生物技术;2011年01期
7 刘佩芳,鲍润贤,牛昀,于咏;乳腺良恶性病变动态增强MRI表现特征与血管生成相关性的初步研究[J];中华放射学杂志;2002年11期
8 李洁;张晓鹏;陆爱萍;欧阳涛;曹];孙应实;唐磊;;乳腺癌新辅助化疗后动态增强MRI表现与病理反应性相关性研究[J];中华放射学杂志;2007年11期
9 赵林;何翠菊;陈莉;张斌;罗娅红;张齐;王聪;张鑫丰;马特;龙飞;张强;徐宏;;动态增强MRI和扩散加权成像在乳腺癌新辅助化疗早期预测疗效的价值[J];中国肿瘤;2010年05期
10 刘文清;徐玲;刘荫华;;动态增强MRI对乳腺癌患者术前化疗疗效评价及相关因素分析:附31例报道[J];中华乳腺病杂志(电子版);2011年03期
，本文编号：2198567
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/yixuelunwen/fangshe/2198567.html
