This article reviews the application of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in both clinical studies and early-phase trials of angiogenesis inhibitors. Emphasis is placed on how variation in image acquisition and analysis affects the meaning and use of derived variables. We then review the potential for future developments, with particular reference to the application of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate the heterogeneity of tumor tissues.

Development of quantitative biomarkers has led to increased use of imaging in the evaluation of tumor angiogenesis (1, 2). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been the most commonly used modality due to its wide availability and lack of ionizing radiation—two features that provide significant benefits over positron emission tomography. Also, although MRI does not offer the high level of biological specificity available with positron emission tomography ligands, it does provide a wide range of physiologically relevant image contrasts that make it a flexible imaging modality.

In dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), the distribution of i.v. administered contrast agent is repeatedly imaged. Subsequent analyses produce biomarkers of the tumor vasculature. The technique is of interest to clinical oncologists for two main reasons. First, DCE-MRI biomarkers of drug efficacy and clinical outcome are used in an increasing number of early-phase clinical trials of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Second, the technique has been applied in the nontrial setting to differentiate benign pathology from malignant disease, to grade tumors noninvasively, to detect early relapse, and to predict clinical outcome after both cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiation therapy (3).

DCE-MRI data analysis is complex. The variables obtained are heavily dependent on the choice of acquisition strategy (e.g., single slice, multislice, or three-dimensional imaging) and image analysis method [e.g., definition of the region of interest (ROI), selection of an arterial input function (AIF), and choice of pharmacokinetic model]. Crucially, all these factors can influence not only the value but also the precise meaning of derived variables. Furthermore, acquisition and analysis methods vary considerably between studies (46). These technical issues are considered in Appendix 1. In the remainder of this article, we begin by reviewing the application of DCE-MRI in clinical studies and in trials of angiogenesis inhibitors. We then discuss the application of DCE-MRI to investigate tumor heterogeneity because this illustrates an important potential use of functional imaging techniques in the evaluation of anticancer therapy.

Clinical adoption of DCE-MRI has been slow. Many studies have used simplified measurements of change in signal intensity for their analyses. Such metrics characterize the shape of the signal-time course curve or describe the rate of increase in signal intensity (7, 8), but show poor reproducibility and do not distinguish the effects of blood flow, blood volume, and contrast agent leakage (9). The application of T1-weighted DCE-MRI to early-phase clinical trials of angiogenesis inhibitors has driven developments in quantitative image analysis, particularly the modeling of variables that describe tumor microvascular structure and function (Fig. 1). The details of these alternative analysis techniques are discussed in Appendix 1.

Fig. 1.

Compartmental modeling of the tumor microvasculature in a single MRI voxel. Contrast molecules (green dots) enter the tissue through a blood vessel, approximated by the AIF. Some contrast agent remains in the vessel, enabling calculation of plasma volume (vp) within the tissue and some leaks into the extracellular space. Clinically available MRI contrast agents do not leak into the intracellular space. The volume transfer constant of contrast agent (Ktrans) leakage is determined by the contrast concentration difference between the intravascular and extravascular space, flow (F), and the product of the capillary surface area (S) and permeability (P). MRI signal change will also be affected by the proportional size of the extravascular extracellular space (ve).

Fig. 1.

Compartmental modeling of the tumor microvasculature in a single MRI voxel. Contrast molecules (green dots) enter the tissue through a blood vessel, approximated by the AIF. Some contrast agent remains in the vessel, enabling calculation of plasma volume (vp) within the tissue and some leaks into the extracellular space. Clinically available MRI contrast agents do not leak into the intracellular space. The volume transfer constant of contrast agent (Ktrans) leakage is determined by the contrast concentration difference between the intravascular and extravascular space, flow (F), and the product of the capillary surface area (S) and permeability (P). MRI signal change will also be affected by the proportional size of the extravascular extracellular space (ve).

Close modal

Analysis of enhancement kinetics (commonly from very low temporal resolution acquisitions) has become standard for the diagnostic classification of lesions in the breast and the liver. In the breast, it is common to calculate enhancement rates from regions of interest placed within suspicious lesions (10) with simple signal intensity metrics such as the proportion of maximal enhancement that occurs over a given time (e.g., 80%/min; ref. 8). Although malignant lesions tend to have higher enhancement rates, no fixed threshold provides a reliable distinction. Evidence of early washout of contrast agent has also been strongly associated with malignancy (11). Furthermore, enhancement patterns help identify histologic subtypes and predict response to radiotherapy and overall prognosis (1214). Characterization of liver lesions is improved by examination of the enhancement rate and pattern (i.e., the spatial heterogeneity) and by examination of changes in enhancement on late scans (15).

In the brain, T2*-weighted imaging of glioblastoma multiforme has repeatedly shown heterogeneity in cerebral blood volume (CBV) parametric maps (Fig. 2), where areas of high CBV correlate to regions of high-grade malignancy (1618). Consequently, the practice of targeting biopsy to an area of high CBV has been adopted in many specialist centers (19). In addition, measurement of volume transfer coefficient of contrast agent across the capillary wall (Ktrans) has been shown to independently predict prognosis using T1-weighted sequences, further supporting use of DCE-MRI in the management of brain tumors (18, 20).

Fig. 2.

T1-weighted anatomic image in a patient with a glioblastoma multiforme in the right cerebral hemisphere (left) with a parametric map of CBV calculated from T2*-weighted dynamic MRI data (right; no units).

Fig. 2.

T1-weighted anatomic image in a patient with a glioblastoma multiforme in the right cerebral hemisphere (left) with a parametric map of CBV calculated from T2*-weighted dynamic MRI data (right; no units).

Close modal

There is also increasing evidence that DCE-MRI may have further oncological applications. Characterization of prostate carcinoma lesions and their discrimination from benign disease can be improved by using dynamic contrast-enhanced analysis (21). Other potential applications include monitoring the response of osteosarcoma to chemotherapy (22), evaluation of the effect of radiotherapy early in treatment in cervical carcinoma (23), and using DCE-MRI to predict event-free survival in multiple myeloma (24). In general, as simple analysis packages, often using signal intensity metrics, become commercially available, indications for using dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography and MRI in follow-up and treatment evaluation are increasing (1, 25, 26).

Approximately 30 DCE-MRI–based studies of antiangiogenic (2750) and vascular targeting agents (5156) have been reported to date, predominately in phase I trials, although a few phase II studies have incorporated the technique. Image acquisition, analysis, and principal findings have been extensively reviewed elsewhere (57). Nearly all of these studies have utilized T1-weighted DCE-MRI. Some studies have also incorporated positron emission tomography, T2*-weighted DEC-MRI, and/or other functional imaging techniques.

Modeled DCE-MRI variables are subject to random error, biological variation and measurement inaccuracies. All of these factors cause day-to-day variation in measured values; thus, it is necessary to calculate confidence intervals for each combination of DCE-MRI model, choice of AIF, and variable. Some consensus has been reached on what degree of change is likely to represent true change—for example, most studies accept a change in Ktrans of >40% as likely to represent a true difference due to drug effect—but in practice the precise confidence interval varies between studies depending on image acquisition and analysis variables (58, 59). For this reason, many centers have routinely done two baseline examinations to calculate variable reproducibility for an individual phase I trial (32, 44, 53).

Some trials have reported model-free analyses based on the initial area under the gadolinium contrast agent concentration-time curve (IAUGC), but the majority have used some form of pharmacokinetic analysis either alone or in combination with IAUGC (57). When modeling has been applied, most have adopted a simple model with only a minority attempting to correct for intravascular contrast effects. Despite this, evidence for drug efficacy has been found in several compounds, including the anti–vascular endothelial growth factor antibody bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech; ref. 49); the tyrosine kinase inhibitors vatalanib (PTK787/ZK222584; Novartis; refs. 29, 36, 37, 47, 60), axitinib (AG-013736; Pfizer; ref. 34), BIBF1120 (Boehringer Ingelheim; ref. 39), and cediranib (AZD2171; AstraZeneca; ref. 30); and the antitubulin agent combretastatin A4-phosphate (CA-4-P; OxiGene; ref. 53). In each of these trials, significant reduction in IAUGC, Ktrans, or Ki (the unidirectional transfer constant, a similar variable to Ktrans) was observed after treatment. Finally, in some cases, the effective or biologically active dose was, in part, defined by the DCE-MRI biomarker (30, 46, 53).

Despite these encouraging results, identification of change in the tumor microvasculature does not necessarily predict success at phase III evaluation (61). Few trials of angiogenesis inhibitors have described a clear correlation in DCE-MRI biomarker with progression-free survival, the notable exception being sorafenib (BAY43-9006; Bayer; ref. 42). Details of image acquisition, analysis, and findings in some of the key trials are presented in Table 1, which highlights the considerable variation in choice of image acquisition and analysis.

Table 1.

Selected trials of angiogenesis inhibitors evaluated by DCE-MRI

Tumor group*AgentnAcquisitionAIFDCE-MRI biomarkerROI§Principal findingsReference
Anti-VEGF antibody         
    Mixed HuMV833 20 Three-dimensional Measured Ktrans, kep, vp Pixel based Reduction in kep but no dose relationship Jayson et al. (33) 
    Breast Bevacizumab 20 — Measured Ktrans, ve Whole tumor Reduction in Ktrans of 34% Wedam et al. (49) 
Tyrosine kinase inhibitor         
    GBM PTK/ZK 14 T1- and T2*-weighted — Ki, CBV — Dose-dependent reduction in Ki predicts progression Conrad et al. (29) 
    CRC PTK/ZK 26 Two-dimensional single slice Assumed (FH) Ki Whole tumor Dose-dependent reduction in Ki predicts RR and progression Morgan et al. (36) 
    Mixed PTK/ZK 27 Two-dimensional single slice Assumed (FH) Ki Whole tumor Dose-dependent reduction in Ki predicts RR and progression Mross et al. (37) 
    Mixed AZD2171 24 Two-dimensional single slice — IAUGC Whole tumor Reduction in IAUC of ≥40% defined dose Drevs et al. (30) 
    GBM AZD2171 16 Three-dimensional and T2*-weighted — Ktrans, ve, CBV, CBF Pixel based Reduction in Ktrans and ve Batchelor et al. (28) 
    Mixed AG-013736 17 Three-dimensional Measured IAUGC, Ktrans Whole tumor Dose-dependent reduction in IAUGC and Ktrans Liu et al. (34) 
    RCC BAY43-9006 12 — — Ktrans, ve — Reduction in Ktrans predicts RR and PFS O'Dwyer et al. (42) 
    Mixed BIBF1120 35 Two-dimensional multislice Assumed (FH) IAUGC, Ktrans, kep — No consistent relationship with clinical measures Padhani et al. (44) 
Recombinant human endostatin         
    Mixed rhEndostatin 10 Two-dimensional two slice Measured Ktrans, ve Pixel based No change in DCE-MRI biomarkers Eder et al. (31) 
Anti-PDGFR-β antibody Fab′         
    Mixed CDP860 Three-dimensional Measured IAUGC, Ktrans, ve, vp Pixel based No change in DCE-MRI biomarkers Jayson et al. (32) 
Anti-αv integrin         
    Mixed CNTO 95 22 Three-dimensional Measured IAUGC, Ktrans, ve, vp Pixel based Histogram showed difference in group Ktrans Watson et al. (89) 
    GBM EMD 121974 21 T2*-weighted Measured CBV, CBF Pixel based Reduction in gradient peak and enhancement Akella et al. (27) 
Flavonoid         
    Mixed DMXAA 16 Two-dimensional multislice No model SI metrics Pixel based Reduction in SI metrics Galbraith et al. (54) 
Antitubulin combretastatin analogue         
    Mixed CA-4-P Two-dimensional single slice No model SI metrics Whole tumor Reduction in gradient peak and enhancement Dowlatti et al. (51) 
    Mixed CA-4-P 18 Two-dimensional multislice Assumed (W) IAUGC, Ktrans, ve Pixel based Dose-dependent reduction in Ktrans defined dose Galbraith et al. (53) 
    Mixed CA-4-P 10 Three-dimensional — Ktrans, ve Whole tumor No consistent findings Stevenson et al. (56) 
Colchicine analogue         
    Mixed ZD6126 Three-dimensional — IAUGC Pixel based Dose-dependent reduction in IAUGC Evelhoch et al. (52) 
Tumor group*AgentnAcquisitionAIFDCE-MRI biomarkerROI§Principal findingsReference
Anti-VEGF antibody         
    Mixed HuMV833 20 Three-dimensional Measured Ktrans, kep, vp Pixel based Reduction in kep but no dose relationship Jayson et al. (33) 
    Breast Bevacizumab 20 — Measured Ktrans, ve Whole tumor Reduction in Ktrans of 34% Wedam et al. (49) 
Tyrosine kinase inhibitor         
    GBM PTK/ZK 14 T1- and T2*-weighted — Ki, CBV — Dose-dependent reduction in Ki predicts progression Conrad et al. (29) 
    CRC PTK/ZK 26 Two-dimensional single slice Assumed (FH) Ki Whole tumor Dose-dependent reduction in Ki predicts RR and progression Morgan et al. (36) 
    Mixed PTK/ZK 27 Two-dimensional single slice Assumed (FH) Ki Whole tumor Dose-dependent reduction in Ki predicts RR and progression Mross et al. (37) 
    Mixed AZD2171 24 Two-dimensional single slice — IAUGC Whole tumor Reduction in IAUC of ≥40% defined dose Drevs et al. (30) 
    GBM AZD2171 16 Three-dimensional and T2*-weighted — Ktrans, ve, CBV, CBF Pixel based Reduction in Ktrans and ve Batchelor et al. (28) 
    Mixed AG-013736 17 Three-dimensional Measured IAUGC, Ktrans Whole tumor Dose-dependent reduction in IAUGC and Ktrans Liu et al. (34) 
    RCC BAY43-9006 12 — — Ktrans, ve — Reduction in Ktrans predicts RR and PFS O'Dwyer et al. (42) 
    Mixed BIBF1120 35 Two-dimensional multislice Assumed (FH) IAUGC, Ktrans, kep — No consistent relationship with clinical measures Padhani et al. (44) 
Recombinant human endostatin         
    Mixed rhEndostatin 10 Two-dimensional two slice Measured Ktrans, ve Pixel based No change in DCE-MRI biomarkers Eder et al. (31) 
Anti-PDGFR-β antibody Fab′         
    Mixed CDP860 Three-dimensional Measured IAUGC, Ktrans, ve, vp Pixel based No change in DCE-MRI biomarkers Jayson et al. (32) 
Anti-αv integrin         
    Mixed CNTO 95 22 Three-dimensional Measured IAUGC, Ktrans, ve, vp Pixel based Histogram showed difference in group Ktrans Watson et al. (89) 
    GBM EMD 121974 21 T2*-weighted Measured CBV, CBF Pixel based Reduction in gradient peak and enhancement Akella et al. (27) 
Flavonoid         
    Mixed DMXAA 16 Two-dimensional multislice No model SI metrics Pixel based Reduction in SI metrics Galbraith et al. (54) 
Antitubulin combretastatin analogue         
    Mixed CA-4-P Two-dimensional single slice No model SI metrics Whole tumor Reduction in gradient peak and enhancement Dowlatti et al. (51) 
    Mixed CA-4-P 18 Two-dimensional multislice Assumed (W) IAUGC, Ktrans, ve Pixel based Dose-dependent reduction in Ktrans defined dose Galbraith et al. (53) 
    Mixed CA-4-P 10 Three-dimensional — Ktrans, ve Whole tumor No consistent findings Stevenson et al. (56) 
Colchicine analogue         
    Mixed ZD6126 Three-dimensional — IAUGC Pixel based Dose-dependent reduction in IAUGC Evelhoch et al. (52) 

NOTE: Not all details were provided in some studies.

Abbreviations: GBM, glioblastoma multiforme; CRC, colorectal carcinoma; RCC, renal cell carcinoma; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; PDGFR-β, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-β; FH, Fritz-Hansen method; W, Weinmann method; RR, response rate; PFS, progression-free survival; EES, extracellular extravascular space.

*

Tumors were either mixed solid group, breast, glioblastoma multiforme, or colorectal or renal cell carcinoma.

AIF was either measured or assumed by the Fritz-Hansen or Weinmann methods.

DCE-MRI biomarkers include (in table order) Ktrans (volume transfer coefficient), kep (rate constant), vp (blood plasma volume), ve (volume of the EES), Ki (unidirectional influx), IAUGC (initial area under the gadolinium contrast agent concentration-time curve), CBV, CBF (cerebral blood flow), or SI (signal intensity) metrics.

§

ROI analysis was either on a whole-tumor basis or pixel based.

All T1-weighted acquisitions were at 1.5 T except Batchelor et al. (28), done at 3 T.

No DCE-MRI variable has yet been accepted as a validated surrogate end point for use in phase III trials or routine clinical practice. Several points must be considered here. First, variables represent composites of physiologic processes rather than absolute measurements of flow or capillary permeability. Hence, a variable such as Ktrans will not accurately measure flow or permeability—indeed, its precise meaning will vary between examinations. Second, there is evidence that the pharmacokinetic models used in DCE-MRI systematically overestimate Ktrans and underestimate the blood plasma volume fraction (vp; ref. 62). Third, considerable variations in measurement reproducibility reduce the confidence limits for individual measurements in a clinical setting.

Fourth, validation of DCE-MRI variables against histologic and serum biomarkers of angiogenesis is incomplete. Broad correlations between various MRI variables have been shown with tumor microvascular density (63); however, the marked variation in image acquisition and analysis between studies make comparison difficult. For example, several studies have correlated signal intensity metrics with microvascular density in patients with breast cancer. Amplitude and time to enhancement have been shown to correlate with microvascular density (64, 65); however, this has not been widely replicated (66). Furthermore, a linear relationship between the MRI efflux rate constant (k21), which approximates to a measure of vascular permeability and surface area, has been reported with tissue vascular endothelial growth factor staining, although no relationship was found with microvascular density (10). This, in part, reflects the problem of comparing MRI changes measured at the millimeter level with either histology markers of vessel structure or distribution of receptors at the micrometer scale, or with circulating levels of angiogenic growth factors. Furthermore, microvascular density is a measurement of vessel density, whereas MRI variables such as vp reflect the average density and are sensitive only to perfused vessels.

Finally, only a small number of DCE-MRI clinical studies have shown evidence for predicting clinical outcome. Examples include signal intensity metrics predicting local recurrence (67) and survival (68) in patients with cervical carcinoma and Ktrans as an independent prognostic indicator of survival in patients with high-grade glioma (20). Lack of comprehensive validation against clinical outcome data currently prevents the use of DCE-MRI biomarkers as an accepted surrogate end point in a phase III trials or in clinical studies.

Human solid tumors are biologically heterogeneous (69), exhibiting considerable variation in microvascular structure and function (70, 71). In particular, growth factor expression is spatially heterogeneous within lesions of different size and may change during tumor growth (72). Furthermore, treatment of tumors with angiogenesis inhibitors has been shown to promote alternative angiogenic growth factor pathways, further promoting tumor heterogeneity (73). Imaging-based biomarkers have the potential to evaluate intratumoral heterogeneity and its relationship to tumor growth and response to therapy (2).

Technical considerations and practical approaches. The values of DCE-MRI variables are strongly affected by the definition of the tumor ROI. In each study, a decision must be made as to whether nonenhancing pixels are included in the ROI. Inclusion of zero values artificially lowers the mean and/or median variable values. Exclusion can obscure important heterogeneity information and can increase motion errors by effectively increasing the surface area of the normal tissue boundary around the sampled tumor. Three-dimensional ROI cover the entire tumor and are considered to be more accurate and reproducible than two-dimensional ROI, which are error prone despite attempts to correct for in-plane motion (36).

DCE-MRI data analysis assumes that signal intensity measurements taken over time originate from exactly the same volume of tissue in each sample. This is untrue outside of the brain due to physiologic (respiratory and cardiac) motion and patient movement. Use of a single ROI covering an entire tumor can reduce misregistration errors. Here, a single average enhancement curve can be extracted (34, 36, 37, 47, 51) to produce averaged kinetic variable estimates, for example of Ktrans, for the entire tumor. However, this approach clearly ignores heterogeneity of tumor enhancement.

Alternatively, variables may be produced for each pixel (74), allowing the production of DCE-MRI variable maps, from which summary statistics, such as mean and/or median Ktrans, may be calculated (28, 32, 33, 52, 53). This is routine practice in most cerebral studies because physiologic movement is negligible, allowing techniques such as tumor grading and targeted biopsy (19). However, the presence of motion reduces measurement reproducibility, especially in tumors with spatially heterogeneous enhancement around the edges of the selected ROI, resulting in a lower power to studies (75). Physiologic motion through the imaging plane further compounds motion error, particularly in studies that utilize a single imaging slice. Although these problems occur in whole-tumor ROI analysis, they are even greater in pixel mapping.

Hence, pixel mapping is technically challenging in areas of significant physiologic motion, such as the thorax and abdomen. Data may be acquired during breath holding (36, 56); however, such methods inevitably require concessions in the range and accuracy of biomarkers that can extracted (76). An alternative approach is to correct physiologic motion through postprocessing techniques (75). Spatial coregistration of MRI is routinely applied in dynamic brain imaging, but is more complex in the abdomen, where tissues are subject to greater motion and are not only displaced but also distorted during movement.

Specific DCE-MRI heterogeneity analysis techniques. Simple summary statistics (e.g., median Ktrans) do not accurately describe heterogeneity within tumors (77). However, the distribution of variables can add further information. For example, the SD of pixel values for Ktrans and similar variables within a ROI can improve diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing breast cancer from benign lesions, compared with summary variables alone (78). In a study of high-grade gliomas, median Ktrans did not relate to tumor grade or behavior, whereas measurement of the upper part of the distribution of Ktrans (95th percentile) showed close correlation with overall survival (20). In another study, mean values of relative contrast agent recirculation—a variable that reflects areas of under perfusion—had no significant relationship with tumor behavior, although the distribution of pixel relative recirculation values followed a normal distribution in low-grade tumors but was significantly skewed toward higher values in glioblastoma multiforme (Fig. 3; ref. 79).

Fig. 3.

Distribution of the values of relative recirculation (rR) in a low-grade (left) and high-grade (right) glioma. Note that the values are normally distributed in the low-grade tumor (with a skewness of 0.45) but show significant skew (1.22) toward the right of the distribution in the high-grade tumor.

Fig. 3.

Distribution of the values of relative recirculation (rR) in a low-grade (left) and high-grade (right) glioma. Note that the values are normally distributed in the low-grade tumor (with a skewness of 0.45) but show significant skew (1.22) toward the right of the distribution in the high-grade tumor.

Close modal

These alternative analysis techniques suggest that description of tumor heterogeneity is possible and that such analyses can significantly strengthen the use of DCE-MRI in studies of tumor pathophysiology or drug action, for example in detecting differential regional changes in the tumor core and enhancing rim (53). More specialized statistical analyses of heterogeneity based on DCE-MRI data are in their infancy but have already shown important clinical findings.

Data from several studies suggest that histogram analysis is sensitive at detecting change in tumor heterogeneity after treatment. In patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer, SD and kurtosis of enhancement amplitude before therapy predicted subsequent radiological response. Furthermore, tumors that responded had significant reduction in SD of enhancement amplitude and showed change from a heterogeneous distribution into a more homogeneous one (80). Change in histogram heterogeneity has also been seen in a second clinical study of breast cancer (81) and in patients with rectal cancer after radiotherapy (82). Relative signal intensity (a model-free measure of tumor enhancement) of the 10th percentile has been shown to better predict tumor recurrence than mean or median relative signal intensity in patients with cervical carcinoma after radiotherapy (83). Histograms of enhancement variables (including Ktrans) have discriminated tumors treated with the thioredoxin-1 inhibitor PX-12 (Prolx Pharmaceuticals) versus untreated tumors in an animal model of colon cancer (84) and in a FSaII mouse fibrosarcoma models receiving NS-398 (85), where treated animals exhibited narrow homogeneously distributed histograms.

Interestingly, subtle or regional differences in antiangiogenic therapy efficacy can be shown using histogram analysis (Fig. 4), which may improve the overall sensitivity of preclinical studies and early-phase clinical trials. In one study, of the PC-3 prostate adenocarcinoma mouse tumor model, significant reductions in Ktrans and the extracellular extravascular volume (ve) were shown throughout entire tumors, after administration of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZD6474 (AstraZeneca). However, change in Ktrans and ve were significantly greater in the pixels corresponding to the lower 80% of absolute baseline Ktrans values, which represented the tumor core (86). Importantly, application of a principal components analysis to the data showed disappearance of a second peak from a bimodal distribution after treatment—evidence of change in both the median value of Ktrans and the heterogeneity within the tumor Ktrans distribution (87). Tumor heterogeneity of response has also been shown in a mouse tumor model of human breast cancer after inhibition with AG-013736 (88). Histogram analysis of distributions of Ktrans showed highly significant differences between progressive and stable disease in a phase I trial of the αν-integrin receptor antibody (CNTO 95; Centocor; Fig. 5; ref. 89), although no significant changes were found in median Ktrans in response to therapy (40).

Fig. 4.

Pixel map of Ktrans within a liver metastasis from a primary colorectal cancer superimposed on a T2-weighted anatomic image. It is clear that the distribution of pixel values of Ktrans within the tumor is nonnormally distributed. Note that the pharmacokinetic model used has produced some (overestimated) nonphysiologic values of Ktrans.

Fig. 4.

Pixel map of Ktrans within a liver metastasis from a primary colorectal cancer superimposed on a T2-weighted anatomic image. It is clear that the distribution of pixel values of Ktrans within the tumor is nonnormally distributed. Note that the pharmacokinetic model used has produced some (overestimated) nonphysiologic values of Ktrans.

Close modal
Fig. 5.

Histograms of Ktrans distribution in a study of the antiangiogenic agent CNTO 95 in mixed solid tumors. Data are subdivided into those showing stable or better disease at follow-up versus those with disease progression. Although no significant difference was found in median Ktrans between these groups, significant differences were seen in histogram analysis (adapted with permission from ISMRM from ref. 89).

Fig. 5.

Histograms of Ktrans distribution in a study of the antiangiogenic agent CNTO 95 in mixed solid tumors. Data are subdivided into those showing stable or better disease at follow-up versus those with disease progression. Although no significant difference was found in median Ktrans between these groups, significant differences were seen in histogram analysis (adapted with permission from ISMRM from ref. 89).

Close modal

Histogram analysis may be useful in grading tumors. In a limited number of studies, principally in gliomas, clear differences have been shown in both the median values of CBV and the distributions of values of normalized CBV for high-grade gliomas and cerebral metastases versus low-grade tumors (90). Furthermore, CBV pixel histogram analysis can accurately grade gliomas (91) and has been shown to detect and quantify subtle changes in tissue enhancement that predict disease progression (92). It is important to note that although histogram analysis may provide useful information regarding tumor heterogeneity, it does so at the expense of including spatial information.

Useful heterogeneity information may be produced from other features of the dynamic data series. One simple but powerful method is to measure the fraction of pixels that enhance after contrast agent administration. A phase I trial of CNTO 95 has shown that enhancing fraction can discriminate between stable and progressive disease in the absence of a clear treatment effect (40). More sophisticated approaches to assess spatial heterogeneity include fractal analysis, which may provide useful markers of response to treatment (93). In another application of fractal analysis, ve variable maps (a variable previously assumed to be of little physiologic interest) captured the heterogeneous nature of glioblastoma multiforme and predicted grade (94). Finally, factor analysis enables the characterization of the signal intensity profiles within a tumor and can identify intratumoral heterogeneity, as shown by facilitating prediction of response to chemotherapy in patients with osteosarcoma (22).

DCE-MRI has been shown to provide noninvasive imaging biomarkers of tumor biological response to antiangiogenic and vascular targeting agents in a number of clinical trials. It also has an increasing number of clinical applications. Although further animal and clinical validation of analytic techniques are required, DCE-MRI appears to be a useful tool in the investigation of tumor heterogeneity and has already shown its potential to improve sensitivity to subtle drug effects and provide additional understanding of tumor biology and response to therapy.

Image acquisition strategies. Principal contrast mechanisms in MRI emerge from the relaxation properties of tissue water (or fat) hydrogen nuclei in the scanner magnetic field after undergoing radiofrequency excitation. These properties can be manipulated to reflect features of the molecular and physiologic environment of a tissue. T1-weighted images emphasize the rate (different for different tissue types) at which energy is redistributed between these nuclei and the tissue as a whole. T2*-weighted images emphasize the different rates at which the same nuclei lose phase coherence with one another and the way that this process is affected by local variations in field strength due to differences in magnetic susceptibility between tissues. Conventional gadolinium chelate-based contrast media affect T1-weighted images causing a signal increase, and T2*-weighted images causing a signal decrease.

Nearly all clinical DCE-MRI is done at 1.5 T. The data have a typical spatial resolution of a few millimeters, which reflects the technical limits of the scanner specifications and the need for an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio. This, in turn, limits temporal resolution, in-plane resolution, and the number of slices that can be imaged. There is a direct trade-off between these factors so that rapid sampling at high spatial resolution can be achieved only by sacrificing the volume of tumor sampled (6, 95).

Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. T2* dynamic imaging acquisitions have been widely used in the brain (96), where rapid loss of magnetic resonance signal is used to calculate the change in concentration of contrast agent for each individual voxel. Studies typically use fast imaging techniques such as single or multishot echo planar imaging to produce a temporal resolution of around 2 s, during which it is possible to acquire 5 to 15 slices at a matrix resolution of 128 × 128 or greater, depending on scanner specifications. The acquisition variables vary hugely in T2 and T2* dynamic imaging but all have a long time to repetition (e.g., 200-2,000 ms) and a long echo time (e.g., 50 ms; ref. 95).

Analysis of T2*-weighted DCE-MRI is mainly relevant to a small number of glioma studies and the reader should refer to references (97, 98) for a more detailed description. In brief, the high initial concentration of contrast agent during the first pass makes T2- and T2*-weighted imaging sensitive to both flow and blood volume; hence, measures of the CBV and cerebral blood flow are commonly done (95). It is important to note that the contrast agent is assumed to remain in the vessels as a blood pool marker throughout the examination (99, 100). This is untrue in malignancy, where leakage of contrast agent occurs through a disrupted blood-brain barrier. Also, T2* techniques generally suffer from susceptibility artifacts at interfaces between air and fat/soft tissue, further limiting their use outside the brain.

T1-weighted DCE-MRI: data acquisition and analysis. Most DCE-MRI studies use T1-weighted images, which are generally less sensitive to susceptibility artifact and allow estimation of capillary permeability and surface area. Investigators usually adopt a single/multislice or three-dimensional gradient echo sequence. Typical scan variables include a time to repetition of 3 to 10 ms, echo time under 5 ms, a variety of choice of flip angle, and in-plane imaging matrix between 128 × 128 and 256 × 256 at a spatial resolution of a few millimeters (32, 36, 44). Volumetric acquisition methods allow up to around 25 slices to be acquired over a period in excess of 5 min to provide adequate data. Pharmacokinetic analysis of contrast agent distribution requires transformation of measurements of signal change over time to measurements of contrast agent concentration (5). For T1-weighted protocols, the relationship between signal change and contrast concentration is nonlinear; thus, a separate measurement of baseline T1 values is done before the dynamic series (101, 102).

Pharmacokinetic analyses are complex and the choice of technique has major effect on the meaning of the derived variables. The IAUGC (103) is the simplest pharmacokinetic variable and appears reproducible. This is simply a measure of the amount of contrast agent delivered to and retained in the tumor tissue over a given time period and offers no biological specificity (2, 5). All other pharmacokinetic analyses use curve fitting to characterize the tissue contrast agent concentration curve, together with an estimate of the AIF, which needs to be measured in each patient (104) to portray the “true” input function for each tumor (5). However, accurate measurement of the AIF is technically demanding, due to blood flow artifacts in the image (101, 105), and requires high temporal resolution of less than a second (106). Such rapid data acquisition considerably limits the spatial resolution and extent of tissue coverage that can be achieved. An alternative approach adopts an idealized AIF—generally from population-based studies of contrast agent clearance from the blood pool—which relaxes requirements on temporal resolution, slice positioning, and sequence choice (107, 108).

Modeled variables are in theory independent of the scanning acquisition protocol, thus avoiding problems associated with signal intensity metrics, supporting their use in multicenter studies (26, 33). Simple analyses based on the Kety model provide estimates of Ktrans (or a related variable, Ki) and ve (109, 110). Here, changes in Ktrans reflect changes in blood flow, blood volume, endothelial permeability and endothelial surface area and the individual effects of each component cannot be distinguished (5). These models are widely used but assume that signal change results entirely from contrast agent in the extravascular space. This produces significant errors in voxels that contain large vascular spaces—a relatively common occurrence in tumors (74, 111).

Attempts have been made to provide more accurate estimates of individual microvascular variables, particularly the signal contribution produced by contrast medium within blood plasma volume (112), and to model perfusion (F) and the product of capillary endothelial permeability and capillary surface area (113). These more complex models appear desirable because they allow specific analysis of biological effects; however, increasing the number of variables involved in the curve fitting process produces concomitant reductions in accuracy and reproducibility (9, 62). Therefore, many investigators calculate the IAUGC, which partially reflects Ktrans, ve, and vp (114), and choose one or more of the modeled variables; choice of pharmacokinetic model depends on the degree of specificity required with regard to the mechanism of drug action, the acceptable level of reproducibility in the estimation of biomarkers, and the quality of acquired MRI data. Commonly used variables in DCE-MRI studies (4) are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

List of abbreviations and standard terms commonly used in DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic analyses

SymbolShort nameUnitEnd point
Ktrans Volume transfer constant between plasma and EES min−1 Primary 
kep Rate constant between EES and plasma min−1 Secondary 
Ki Unidirectional transfer constant min−1  
Cp Tracer concentration in arterial blood plasma mmol/L — 
C(tConcentration of contrast agent at time t in each voxel mmol/L — 
ve Volume of EES per unit volume tissue None Secondary 
vp Blood plasma volume None Secondary 
CBV Cerebral blood volume mL Primary 
E Initial extraction ratio — — 
F Flow mL g−1 min−1 — 
P Total capillary wall permeability cm min−1 — 
PS Permeability-surface area product per unit mass of tissue mL min−1 — 
IAUGC Initial area under gadolinium concentration agent- time curve mmol/L Gd min Primary 
SymbolShort nameUnitEnd point
Ktrans Volume transfer constant between plasma and EES min−1 Primary 
kep Rate constant between EES and plasma min−1 Secondary 
Ki Unidirectional transfer constant min−1  
Cp Tracer concentration in arterial blood plasma mmol/L — 
C(tConcentration of contrast agent at time t in each voxel mmol/L — 
ve Volume of EES per unit volume tissue None Secondary 
vp Blood plasma volume None Secondary 
CBV Cerebral blood volume mL Primary 
E Initial extraction ratio — — 
F Flow mL g−1 min−1 — 
P Total capillary wall permeability cm min−1 — 
PS Permeability-surface area product per unit mass of tissue mL min−1 — 
IAUGC Initial area under gadolinium concentration agent- time curve mmol/L Gd min Primary 

NOTE: Data were adapted from ref. 4.

Abbreviation: EES, extracellular extravascular space.

Grant support: Cancer Research UK Clinical Research Training Fellowship grant, ref C19221/A6086 (J.P.B. O'Connor). Cancer Research UK is a charity registered in the United Kingdom, no. 1089464.

We thank Caleb Roberts for the original creation of Fig. 1.

1
Jackson A, Buckley DL, Parker GJM. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Berlin: Springer; 2005.
2
Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations.
Br J Cancer
2005
;
92
:
1599
–610.
3
Blasberg R. Imaging update: new windows, new views.
Clin Cancer Res
2007
;
13
:
3444
–8.
4
Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols.
J Magn Reson Imaging
1999
;
10
:
223
–32.
5
Parker GJM, Buckley DL. Tracer Kinetic Modelling for T1-weighted DCE-MRI. In: Jackson A, Buckley DL, Parker GJM, editors. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Berlin: Springer 2005; p. 81–92.
6
Buckley DL, Parker GJM. Measuring contrast agent concentration in T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. In: Jackson A, Buckley DL, Parker GJM, editors. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag 2005; p.69–79.
7
Stack J, Redmond O, Codd M, et al. Breast disease: tissue characterization with Gd-DTPA enhancement profiles.
Radiology
1990
;
174
:
491
–4.
8
Flickinger F, Allison J, Sherry R, Wright J. Differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses by time-intensity evaluation of contrast enhanced MRI.
Magn Reson Imaging
1993
;
11
:
617
–20.
9
Roberts C, Issa B, Stone A, et al. Comparative study into the robustness of compartmental modeling and model-free analysis in DCE-MRI studies.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2006
;
23
:
554
–63.
10
Knopp MV, Weiss E, Sinn HP, et al. Pathophysiologic basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumors.
J Magn Reson Imaging
1999
;
10
:
260
–6.
11
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.
12
Goto M, Ito H, Akazawa K, et al. Diagnosis of breast tumors by contrast-enhanced MR imaging: comparison between the diagnostic performance of dynamic enhancement patterns and morphologic features.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2007
;
25
:
104
–12.
13
Narisada H, Aoki T, Sasaguri T, et al. Correlation between numeric gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MRI ratios and prognostic factors and histologic type of breast carcinoma.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
2006
;
187
:
297
–306.
14
Takeda Y, Yoshikawa K. Contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging parameters and histological types of invasive ductal carcinoma of breast.
Biomed Pharmacother
2005
;
59
:
115
–21.
15
Jackson A, Haroon H, Zhu XP, et al. Breath-hold perfusion and permeability mapping of hepatic malignancies using magnetic resonance imaging and a first-pass leakage profile model.
NMR Biomed
2002
;
15
:
164
–73.
16
Aronen HJ, Glass J, Pardo FS, et al. Echo-planar MR cerebral blood volume mapping of gliomas. Clinical utility.
Acta Radiol
1995
;
36
:
520
–8.
17
Aronen HJ, Pardo FS, Kennedy DN, et al. High microvascular blood volume is associated with high glucose uptake and tumor angiogenesis in human gliomas.
Clin Cancer Res
2000
;
6
:
2189
–200.
18
Patankar TF, Haroon HA, Mills SJ, et al. Is volume transfer coefficient (Ktrans) related to histologic grade in human gliomas?
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
2005
;
26
:
2455
–65.
19
Knopp EA, Cha S, Johnson G, et al. Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging.
Radiology
1999
;
211
:
791
–8.
20
Mills SJ, Patankar TA, Haroon HA, et al. Do cerebral blood volume and contrast transfer coefficient predict prognosis in human glioma?
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
2006
;
27
:
853
–8.
21
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.
22
Bonnerot V, Charpentier A, Frouin F, et al. Factor analysis of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in predicting the response of osteosarcoma to chemotherapy.
Invest Radiol
1992
;
27
:
847
–55.
23
Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Magnotta VA, et al. Tumor perfusion studies using fast magnetic resonance imaging technique in advanced cervical cancer: a new noninvasive predictive assay.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
1996
;
36
:
623
–33.
24
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.
25
Zahra MA, Hollingsworth KG, Sala E, Lomas DJ, Tan LT. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as a predictor of tumour response to radiotherapy.
Lancet Oncol
2007
;
8
:
63
–74.
26
Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies.
Clin Radiol
2001
;
56
:
607
–20.
27
Akella NS, Twieg DB, Mikkelsen T, et al. Assessment of brain tumor angiogenesis inhibitors using perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: quality and analysis results of a phase I trial.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2004
;
20
:
913
–22.
28
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.
29
Conrad C, Friedman H, Reardon D, et al. A phase I/II trial of single-agent PTK 787/ZK 222584 (PTK/ZK), a novel, oral angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM).
J Clin Oncol (Meet Abstr)
2004
;
22
:
1512
.
30
Drevs J, Medinger M, Mross K, et al. Phase I clinical evaluation of AZD2171, a highly potent VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced tumors.
J Clin Oncol (Meet Abstr)
2005
;
23
:
3002
.
31
Eder JP, Jr., Supko JG, Clark JW, et al. Phase I clinical trial of recombinant human endostatin administered as a short intravenous infusion repeated daily.
J Clin Oncol
2002
;
20
:
3772
–84.
32
Jayson GC, Parker GJ, Mullamitha S, et al. Blockade of platelet-derived growth factor receptor-β by CDP860, a humanized, PEGylated di-Fab′, leads to fluid accumulation and is associated with increased tumor vascularized volume.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
973
–81.
33
Jayson GC, Zweit J, Jackson A, et al. Molecular imaging and biological evaluation of HuMV833 anti-VEGF antibody: implications for trial design of antiangiogenic antibodies.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2002
;
94
:
1484
–93.
34
Liu G, Rugo HS, Wilding G, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a pharmacodynamic measure of response after acute dosing of AG-013736, an oral angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from a phase I study.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
5464
–73.
35
Medved M, Karczmar G, Yang C, et al. Semiquantitative analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in cancer patients: variability and changes in tumor tissue over time.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2004
;
20
:
122
–8.
36
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.
37
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.
38
Mross K, Scheulen M, Frost A, et al. Phase I study of BAY 57-9352, a VEGFR-2 inhibitor, in cycles of 14 days on/7 days off in patients with advanced solid tumors.
J Clin Oncol (Meet Abstr)
2006
;
24
:
3089
.
39
Mross KB, Gmehling D, Frost A, et al. A clinical Phase I, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic study of twice daily BIBF 1120 in advanced cancer patients.
J Clin Oncol (Meet Abstr)
2005
;
23
:
3031
.
40
Mullamitha SA, Ton NC, Parker GJ, et al. Phase I evaluation of a fully human anti-{α}v integrin monoclonal antibody (CNTO 95) in patients with advanced solid tumors.
Clin Cancer Res
2007
;
13
:
2128
–35.
41
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.
42
O'Dwyer PJ, Rosen M, Gallagher M, Schwartz B, Flaherty KT. Pharmacodynamic study of BAY 43–9006 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
J Clin Oncol (Meet Abstr)
2005
;
23
:
3005
.
43
Overmoyer B, Silverman P, Leeming R, et al. Phase II trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel with or without bevacizumab in patients with locally advanced breast cancer.
J Clin Oncol
2004
;
22
:
727
.
44
Padhani AR, Taylor NJ, d'Arcy JA, et al. Dynamic MRI evaluation of the triple receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor BIBF 1120 in patients with advanced solid tumours.
Proc Intl Soc Magn Reson Med
2006
;
14
:
765
.
45
Rosen LS, Kurzrock R, Jackson E, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetics of AMG 706 in patients with advanced solid tumors.
J Clin Oncol (Meet Abstr)
2005
;
23
:
3013
.
46
Rosen LS, Wilding G, Sweeney C, et al. Phase I dose escalation study to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of BMS-582664, a VEGFR/FGFR inhibitor in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors.
J Clin Oncol (Meet Abstr)
2006
;
24
:
3051
.
47
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.
48
Thomas JP, Arzoomanian RZ, Alberti D, et al. Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of recombinant human endostatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.
J Clin Oncol
2003
;
21
:
223
–31.
49
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.
50
Xiong HQ, Herbst R, Faria SC, et al. A phase I surrogate endpoint study of SU6668 in patients with solid tumors.
Invest New Drugs
2004
;
22
:
459
–66.
51
Dowlati A, Robertson K, Cooney M, et al. A phase I pharmacokinetic and translational study of the novel vascular targeting agent combretastatin a-4 phosphate on a single-dose intravenous schedule in patients with advanced cancer.
Cancer Res
2002
;
62
:
3408
–16.
52
Evelhoch JL, LoRusso PM, He Z, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of the response of murine and human tumors to the vascular-targeting agent ZD6126.
Clin Cancer Res
2004
;
10
:
3650
–7.
53
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.
54
Galbraith SM, Rustin GJ, Lodge MA, et al. Effects of 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid on human tumor microcirculation assessed by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.
J Clin Oncol
2002
;
20
:
3826
–40.
55
McKeage MJ, Fong P, Jeffery M, et al. 5,6-Dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid in the treatment of refractory tumors: a phase I safety study of a vascular disrupting agent.
Clin Cancer Res
2006
;
12
:
1776
–84.
56
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.
57
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.
58
Galbraith SM, Lodge MA, Taylor NJ, et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in human muscle and tumours: comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative analysis.
NMR Biomed
2002
;
15
:
132
–42.
59
Padhani AR, Hayes C, Landau S, Leach MO. Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic MRI of normal human tissues.
NMR Biomed
2002
;
15
:
143
–53.
60
Thomas AL, Morgan B, Drevs J, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: PTK787/ZK 222584.
Semin Oncol
2003
;
30
:
32
–8.
61
Hecht J, Trarbach T, Jaeger E, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study in patients (Pts) with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum receiving first-line chemotherapy with oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and PTK787/ZK 222584 or placebo (CONFIRM-1).
J Clin Oncol (Meet Abstr)
2005
;
23
:
3
.
62
Buckley DL. Uncertainty in the analysis of tracer kinetics using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI.
Magn Reson Med
2002
;
47
:
601
–6.
63
Jayson GC, Waterton JC. Applications of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in oncology drug development. In: Jackson A, Buckley DL, Parker GJM, editors. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Berlin: Springer 2005; p. 281–97.
64
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.
65
Stomper PC, Winston JS, Herman S, et al. Angiogenesis and dynamic MR imaging gadolinium enhancement of malignant and benign breast lesions.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
1997
;
45
:
39
–46.
66
Hulka CA, Edmister WB, Smith BL, et al. Dynamic echo-planar imaging of the breast: experience in diagnosing breast carcinoma and correlation with tumor angiogenesis.
Radiology
1997
;
205
:
837
–42.
67
Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Zheng J, et al. Prediction of tumor control in patients with cervical cancer: analysis of combined volume and dynamic enhancement pattern by MR imaging.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
1998
;
170
:
177
–82.
68
Hawighorst H, Knapstein PG, Knopp MV, et al. Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of standard and pharmacokinetic analysis of time-intensity curves for assessment of tumor angiogenesis and patient survival.
Cancer Res
1998
;
58
:
3598
–602.
69
Heppner GH. Tumor heterogeneity.
Cancer Res
1984
;
44
:
2259
–65.
70
Carmeliet P, Jain RK. Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases.
Nature
2000
;
407
:
249
–57.
71
Gillies RJ, Schornack PA, Secomb TW, Raghunand N. Causes and effects of heterogeneous perfusion in tumors.
Neoplasia
1999
;
1
:
197
–207.
72
Kumar R, Kuniyasu H, Bucana CD, Wilson MR, Fidler IJ. Spatial and temporal expression of angiogenic molecules during tumor growth and progression.
Oncol Res
1998
;
10
:
301
–11.
73
Casanovas O, Hicklin DJ, Bergers G, Hanahan D. Drug resistance by evasion of antiangiogenic targeting of VEGF signaling in late-stage pancreatic islet tumors.
Cancer Cell
2005
;
8
:
299
–309.
74
Parker GJ, Suckling J, Tanner SF, et al. Probing tumor microvascularity by measurement, analysis and display of contrast agent uptake kinetics.
J Magn Reson Imaging
1997
;
7
:
564
–74.
75
Buonaccorsi GA, Roberts C, Cheung S, et al. Comparison of the performance of tracer kinetic model-driven registration for dynamic contrast enhanced MRI using different models of contrast enhancement.
Acad Radiol
2006
;
13
:
1112
–23.
76
Li KL, Jackson A. New hybrid technique for accurate and reproducible quantitation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data.
Magn Reson Med
2003
;
50
:
1286
–95.
77
Walker-Samuel S, Taylor NJ, Padhani AR, Leach MO, Collins DJ. The effect of heterogeneous tumour enhancement on the assessment of response to treatment.
Proc Intl Soc Magn Reson Med
2006
;
14
:
761
.
78
Issa B, Buckley DL, Turnbull LW. Heterogeneity analysis of Gd-DTPA uptake: improvement in breast lesion differentiation.
J Comput Assist Tomogr
1999
;
23
:
615
–21.
79
Jackson A, Kassner A, Annesley-Williams D, et al. Abnormalities in the recirculation phase of contrast agent bolus passage in cerebral gliomas: comparison with relative blood volume and tumor grade.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
2002
;
23
:
7
–14.
80
Chang YC, Huang CS, Liu YJ, et al. Angiogenic response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy evaluated with parametric histogram from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.
Phys Med Biol
2004
;
49
:
3593
–602.
81
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.
82
de Lussanet QG, Backes WH, Griffioen AW, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of radiation therapy-induced microcirculation changes in rectal cancer.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
2005
;
63
:
1309
–15.
83
Mayr NA, Yuh WT, Arnholt JC, et al. Pixel analysis of MR perfusion imaging in predicting radiation therapy outcome in cervical cancer.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2000
;
12
:
1027
–33.
84
Jordan BF, Runquist M, Raghunand N, et al. The thioredoxin-1 inhibitor 1-methylpropyl 2-imidazolyl disulfide (PX-12) decreases vascular permeability in tumor xenografts monitored by dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.
Clin Cancer Res
2005
;
11
:
529
–36.
85
Crokart N, Radermacher K, Jordan BF, et al. Tumor radiosensitization by antiinflammatory drugs: evidence for a new mechanism involving the oxygen effect.
Cancer Res
2005
;
65
:
7911
–6.
86
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.
87
O'Connor EL, Fieller N, Holmes A, Waterton J. How to analyse dynamic MRI in oncology; advanced histogram analysis gives better statistical power & insight than simple averaging.
Proc Intl Soc Magn Reson Med
2005
;
13
:
2101
.
88
Li KL, Wilmes LJ, Henry RG, et al. Heterogeneity in the angiogenic response of a BT474 human breast cancer to a novel vascular endothelial growth factor-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor: assessment by voxel analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2005
;
22
:
511
–9.
89
Watson Y, Cheung S, Roberts C, et al. Prognostic power of DCE-MRI heterogeneity analysis in patients with advanced solid tumors.
Proc Intl Soc Magn Reson Med
2006
;
14
:
755
.
90
Emblem KE, Nedregaard B, Due-Tonnessen P, et al. Characterization of intra-axial neoplasms by histogram analysis of total tumor volume from MR-derived cerebral blood volume maps.
Proc Int Soc Magn Reson Med
2006
;
14
:
823
.
91
Young RJ, Pollack E, Lu H, et al. Region-of-interest analysis vs. non-region-of-interest histogram analysis in the evaluation of cerebral gliomas.
Proc Int Soc Magn Reson Med
2006
;
14
:
3158
.
92
Tofts PS, Benton CE, Weil RS, et al. Quantitative analysis of whole-tumor Gd enhancement histograms predicts malignant transformation in low-grade gliomas.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2007
;
25
:
208
–14.
93
Dzik-Jurasz A, Walker-Samuel S, Leach MO, et al. Fractal parameters derived from analysis of DCE-MRI data correlates with response to therapy in rectal carcinoma.
Proc Int Soc Magn Reson Med
2004
;
2
:
2503
.
94
Rose CJ, Buonaccorsi GA, Cheung S, et al. Fractal properties of tumours in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.
Proc Int Soc Reson Med.
2007
;
15
:
2821
.
95
Jackson A. Analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.
Br J Radiol
2004
;
77
Spec No 2:
S154
–66.
96
Barbier EL, Lamalle L, Decorps M. Methodology of brain perfusion imaging.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2001
;
13
:
496
–520.
97
Weisskoff R, Boxerman J, Sorensen A, et al. Simultaneous blood volume and permeability mapping using a single Gd-based contrast injection.
Proc Int Soc Magn Reson Med
1994
;
2
:
279
.
98
Kassner A, Annesley DJ, Zhu XP, et al. Abnormalities of the contrast re-circulation phase in cerebral tumors demonstrated using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced imaging: a possible marker of vascular tortuosity.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2000
;
11
:
103
–13.
99
Rosen BR, Belliveau JW, Aronen HJ, et al. Susceptibility contrast imaging of cerebral blood volume: human experience.
Magn Reson Med
1991
;
22
:
293
–9.
100
Ostergaard L, Johannsen P, Host Poulsen P, et al. Cerebral blood flow measurements by magnetic resonance imaging bolus tracking: comparison with [O15] H2O positron emission tomography in humans.
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab
1998
;
18
:
935
–40.
101
Zhu XP, Li KL, Kamaly-Asl ID, et al. Quantification of endothelial permeability, leakage space, and blood volume in brain tumors using combined T1 and T2* contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2000
;
11
:
575
–85.
102
Haase A. Snapshot FLASH MRI. Applications to T1, T2, and chemical-shift imaging.
Magn Reson Med
1990
;
13
:
77
–89.
103
Evelhoch JL. Key factors in the acquisition of contrast kinetic data for oncology.
J Magn Reson Imaging
1999
;
10
:
254
–9.
104
Parker GJ, Roberts C, Macdonald A, et al. Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.
Magn Reson Med
2006
;
56
:
993
–1000.
105
Li K, Zhu X, Waterton J, Jackson A. Improved 3D quantitative mapping of blood volume and endothelial permeability in brain tumours.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2000
;
12
:
347
–57.
106
Henderson E, Rutt BK, Lee TY. Temporal sampling requirements for the tracer kinetics modeling of breast disease.
Magn Reson Imaging
1998
;
16
:
1057
–73.
107
Weinmann HJ, Laniado M, Mutzel W. Pharmacokinetics of GdDTPA/dimeglumine after intravenous injection into healthy volunteers.
Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR
1984
;
16
:
167
–72.
108
Fritz-Hansen T, Rostrup E, Larsson HB, et al. Measurement of the arterial concentration of Gd-DTPA using MRI: a step toward quantitative perfusion imaging.
Magn Reson Med
1996
;
36
:
225
–31.
109
Tofts PS, Kermode AG. Measurement of the blood brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging: fundamental concepts.
Magn Reson Med
1991
;
17
:
357
–67.
110
Larsson HB, Stubgaard M, Frederiksen JL, et al. Quantitation of blood-brain barrier defect by magnetic resonance imaging and gadolinium-DTPA in patients with multiple sclerosis and brain tumors.
Magn Reson Med
1990
;
16
:
117
–31.
111
Haroon HA, Buckley DL, Patankar TA, et al. A comparison of Ktrans measurements obtained with conventional and first pass pharmacokinetic models in human gliomas.
J Magn Reson Imaging
2004
;
19
:
527
–36.
112
Tofts PS. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging.
J Magn Reson Imaging
1997
;
7
:
91
–101.
113
St Lawrence K, Lee T. An Adiabatic Approximation to the tissue homogeneity model for water exchange in the brain: i. theoretical derivation.
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab
1998
;
18
:
1365
–77.
114
Walker-Samuel S, Leach MO, Collins DJ. Evaluation of response to treatment using DCE-MRI: the relationship between initial area under the gadolinium curve (IAUGC) and quantitative pharmacokinetic analysis.
Phys Med Biol
2006
;
51
:
3593
–602.