Top

BMC Medical Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Software

ROCKETSHIP: a flexible and modular software tool for the planning, processing and analysis of dynamic MRI studies

Authors: Samuel R. Barnes, Thomas S. C. Ng, Naomi Santa-Maria, Axel Montagne, Berislav V. Zlokovic, Russell E. Jacobs

Published in: BMC Medical Imaging | Issue 1/2015

Abstract

Background

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is a promising technique to characterize pathology and evaluate treatment response. However, analysis of DCE-MRI data is complex and benefits from concurrent analysis of multiple kinetic models and parameters. Few software tools are currently available that specifically focuses on DCE-MRI analysis with multiple kinetic models. Here, we developed ROCKETSHIP, an open-source, flexible and modular software for DCE-MRI analysis. ROCKETSHIP incorporates analyses with multiple kinetic models, including data-driven nested model analysis.

Results

ROCKETSHIP was implemented using the MATLAB programming language. Robustness of the software to provide reliable fits using multiple kinetic models is demonstrated using simulated data. Simulations also demonstrate the utility of the data-driven nested model analysis. Applicability of ROCKETSHIP for both preclinical and clinical studies is shown using DCE-MRI studies of the human brain and a murine tumor model.

Conclusion

A DCE-MRI software suite was implemented and tested using simulations. Its applicability to both preclinical and clinical datasets is shown. ROCKETSHIP was designed to be easily accessible for the beginner, but flexible enough for changes or additions to be made by the advanced user as well. The availability of a flexible analysis tool will aid future studies using DCE-MRI.

A public release of ROCKETSHIP is available at https://github.com/petmri/ROCKETSHIP.

Available only for authorised users

Parker GJ, Padhani AR. T1‐W DCE‐MRI: T1‐Weighted Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced MRI, Quantitative MRI of the Brain: Measuring Changes Caused by Disease. 2004. p. 341–64.

Cuenod C, Fournier L, Balvay D, Guinebretiere J-M. Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging. 2006;31(2):188–93.PubMedCrossRef

Hylton N. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(20):3293–8.PubMedCrossRef

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(2):189–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Frias AE, Schabel MC, Roberts VHJ, Tudorica A, Grigsby PL, Oh KY, et al. Using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to quantitatively characterize maternal vascular organization in the primate placenta. Magn Reson Med. 2014;1570–1578.

Montagne A, Barnes SR, Sweeney MD, Halliday MR, Sagare AP, Zhao Z, et al. Blood-Brain Barrier Breakdown in the Aging Human Hippocampus. Neuron. 2015;85(2):296–302.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Sourbron S, Ingrisch M, Siefert A, Reiser M, Herrmann K. Quantification of cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, and blood–brain-barrier leakage with DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62(1):205–17.PubMedCrossRef

Strijkers GJ, Mulder WJ, van Tilborg GA, Nicolay K. MRI Contrast Agents: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2007;7(3):291–305.PubMedCrossRef

Di Giovanni P, Azlan CA, Ahearn TS, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Redpath TW. The accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurement in DCE-MRI of the breast at 3 T. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(1):121.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Chassidim Y, Veksler R, Lublinsky S, Pell GS, Friedman A, Shelef I. Quantitative imaging assessment of blood-brain barrier permeability in humans. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2013;10(1):9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

11.

Chih‐Feng C, Ling‐Wei H, Chun‐Chung L, Chen‐Chang L, Hsu‐Huei W, Yuan‐Hsiung T, et al. In vivo correlation between semi‐quantitative hemodynamic parameters and Ktrans derived from DCE‐MRI of brain tumors. Int J Imag Syst Tech. 2012;22(2):132–6.CrossRef

12.

Sourbron SP, Buckley DL. Classic models for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. NMR Biomed. 2013;26(8):1004–27.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Jackson A, Li K-L, Zhu X. Semi-Quantitative Parameter Analysis of DCE-MRI Revisited: Monte-Carlo Simulation, Clinical Comparisons, and Clinical Validation of Measurement Errors in Patients with Type 2 Neurofibromatosis. PLoS One. 2014;9(3), e90300.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Koh TS, Bisdas S, Koh DM, Thng CH. Fundamentals of tracer kinetics for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34(6):1262–76.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Parker GJM, Roberts C, Macdonald A, Buonaccorsi GA, Cheung S, Buckley DL, 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(5):993–1000.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Heye T, Boll DT, Reiner CS, Bashir MR, Dale BM, Merkle EM. Impact of precontrast T10 relaxation times on dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI pharmacokinetic parameters: T10 mapping versus a fixed T10 reference value. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;39(5):1136–45.CrossRef

17.

Srikanchana R, Thomasson D, Choyke P, Dwyer A. A comparison of Pharmacokinetic Models of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI. In: Computer-Based Medical Systems, 2004 CBMS 2004 Proceedings 17th IEEE Symposium on: 24-25 June 2004 2004. 2004. p. 361–6.

18.

Cramer SP, Larsson HB. Accurate determination of blood-brain barrier permeability using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI: a simulation and in vivo study on healthy subjects and multiple sclerosis patients. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2014;34(10):1655–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Zloković BV, Lipovac MN, Begley DJ, Davson H, Rakić L. Transport of Leucine-Enkephalin Across the Blood-Brain Barrier in the Perfused Guinea Pig Brain. J Neurochem. 1987;49(1):310–5.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Zlokovic BV, Begley DJ, Chain-Eliash DG. Blood-brain barrier permeability to leucine-enkephalin, d-Alanine2-d-leucine5-enkephalin and their N-terminal amino acid (tyrosine). Brain Res. 1985;336(1):125–32.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Zlokovic B. Cerebrovascular Permeability to Peptides: Manipulations of Transport Systems at the Blood-Brain Barrier. Pharm Res. 1995;12(10):1395–406.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Larsson HB, Courivaud F, Rostrup E, Hansen AE. Measurement of brain perfusion, blood volume, and blood-brain barrier permeability, using dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI at 3 tesla. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62(5):1270–81.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Ewing JR, Bagher-Ebadian H. Model selection in measures of vascular parameters using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: experimental and clinical applications. NMR Biomed. 2013;26(8):1028–41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

24.

Ewing JR, Brown SL, Lu M, Panda S, Ding G, Knight RA, et al. Model selection in magnetic resonance imaging measurements of vascular permeability: Gadomer in a 9L model of rat cerebral tumor. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2006;26(3):310–20.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Stefanovski D, Moate PJ, Boston RC. WinSAAM: a windows-based compartmental modeling system. Metabolism. 2003;52(9):1153–66.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Barrett PHR, Bell BM, Cobelli C, Golde H, Schumitzky A, Vicini P, et al. SAAM II: Simulation, analysis, and modeling software for tracer and pharmacokinetic studies. Metabolism. 1998;47(4):484–92.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Heye T, Davenport MS, Horvath JJ, Feuerlein S, Breault SR, Bashir MR, et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part I. Perfusion characteristics in the female pelvis by using multiple computer-aided diagnosis perfusion analysis solutions. Radiology. 2013;266(3):801–11.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Smith DS, Li X, Arlinghaus LR, Yankeelov TE, Welch EB. DCEMRI.jl: A fast, validated, open source toolkit for dynamic contrast enhanced MRI analysis. PeerJ Pre Prints. 2014;2:e670v671.

29.

Cetin O. An analysis tool to calculate permeability based on the Patlak method. J Med Syst. 2012;36(3):1317–26.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Barboriak DP, MacFall JR, Padua AO, York GE, Viglianti BL, Dewhirst MW. Standardized software for calculation of Ktrans and vp from dynamic T1-weighted MR images. In: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Workshop on MR in Drug Development: From Discovery to Clinical Therapeutic Trials: 2004; McLean, VA; 2004.

31.

Whitcher B, Schmid VJ. Quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for oncology in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;44(5):1–29.CrossRef

32.

Ferl GZ. DATforDCEMRI: an R package for deconvolution analysis and visualization of DCE-MRI data. J Stat Softw. 2011;44(3):1–18.CrossRef

33.

Ortuno JE, Ledesma-Carbayo MJ, Simoes RV, Candiota AP, Arus C, Santos A. DCE@urLAB: a dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI pharmacokinetic analysis tool for preclinical data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;14:316.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

34.

Zollner FG, Weisser G, Reich M, Kaiser S, Schoenberg SO, Sourbron SP, et al. UMMPerfusion: an open source software tool towards quantitative MRI perfusion analysis in clinical routine. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(2):344–52.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Balvay D, Frouin F, Calmon G, Bessoud B, Kahn E, Siauve N, et al. New criteria for assessing fit quality in dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI for perfusion and permeability imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54(4):868–77.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Khalifa F, Soliman A, El-Baz A, El-Ghar MA, El-Diasty T, Gimel’farb G, et al. Models and methods for analyzing DCE-MRI: A review. Med Phys. 2014;41(12):124301.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Bagher-Ebadian H, Jain R, Nejad-Davarani SP, Mikkelsen T, Lu M, Jiang Q, et al. Model Selection for DCE-T1 Studies in Glioblastoma. Magn Reson Med. 2012;68(1):241–51.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Huang W, Li X, Chen Y, Li X, Chang MC, Oborski MJ, et al. Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response: a multicenter data analysis challenge. Transl Oncol. 2014;7(1):153–66.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

39.

Kim H, Folks KD, Guo L, Stockard CR, Fineberg NS, Grizzle WE, et al. DCE-MRI detects early vascular response in breast tumor xenografts following anti-DR5 therapy. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13(1):94–103.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Yankeelov TE, DeBusk LM, Billheimer DD, Luci JJ, Lin PC, Price RR, et al. Repeatability of a reference region model for analysis of murine DCE-MRI data at 7T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(5):1140–7.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Loveless ME, Lawson D, Collins M, Nadella MV, Reimer C, Huszar D, et al. Comparisons of the efficacy of a Jak1/2 inhibitor (AZD1480) with a VEGF signaling inhibitor (cediranib) and sham treatments in mouse tumors using DCE-MRI, DW-MRI, and histology. Neoplasia. 2012;14(1):54–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

42.

Anderson KB, Conder JA. Discussion of Multicyclic Hubbert Modeling as a Method for Forecasting Future Petroleum Production. Energy Fuels. 2011;25(4):1578–84.CrossRef

43.

Glatting G, Kletting P, Reske SN, Hohl K, Ring C. Choosing the optimal fit function: comparison of the Akaike information criterion and the F-test. Med Phys. 2007;34(11):4285–92.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Motulsky H, Christopoulos A. Fitting models to biological data using linear and nonlinear regression: a practical guide to curve fitting: Oxford University Press; 2004.

45.

Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45(1):255–68.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Li K-L, Wilmes LJ, Henry RG, Pallavicini MG, Park JW, Hu-Lowe DD, 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(4):511–9.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Henderson E, Rutt BK, Lee TY. Temporal sampling requirements for the tracer kinetics modeling of breast disease. Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;16(9):1057–73.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Larsson C, Kleppesto M, Rasmussen Jr I, Salo R, Vardal J, Brandal P, et al. Sampling requirements in DCE-MRI based analysis of high grade gliomas: simulations and clinical results. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(4):818–29.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Ng TS, Wert D, Sohi H, Procissi D, Colcher D, Raubitschek AA, et al. Serial diffusion MRI to monitor and model treatment response of the targeted nanotherapy CRLX101. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(9):2518–27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

50.

McGrath DM, Bradley DP, Tessier JL, Lacey T, Taylor CJ, Parker GJ. Comparison of model‐based arterial input functions for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in tumor bearing rats. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61(5):1173–84.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Huang W, Li X, Morris EA, Tudorica LA, Seshan VE, Rooney WD, et al. The magnetic resonance shutter speed discriminates vascular properties of malignant and benign breast tumors in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(46):17943–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

52.

Paudyal R, Poptani H, Cai K, Zhou R, Glickson JD. Impact of transvascular and cellular–interstitial water exchange on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging estimates of blood to tissue transfer constant and blood plasma volume. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(2):435–44.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Li X, Rooney WD, Springer Jr CS. A unified magnetic resonance imaging pharmacokinetic theory: intravascular and extracellular contrast reagents. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54(6):1351–9.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Zhou R, Pickup S, Yankeelov TE, Springer CS, Glickson JD. Simultaneous measurement of arterial input function and tumor pharmacokinetics in mice by dynamic contrast enhanced imaging: Effects of transcytolemmal water exchange. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52(2):248–57.PubMedCrossRef

Title: ROCKETSHIP: a flexible and modular software tool for the planning, processing and analysis of dynamic MRI studies
Authors: Samuel R. Barnes
Thomas S. C. Ng
Naomi Santa-Maria
Axel Montagne
Berislav V. Zlokovic
Russell E. Jacobs
Publication date: 01-12-2015
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Imaging / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-015-0062-3

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

ROCKETSHIP: a flexible and modular software tool for the planning, processing and analysis of dynamic MRI studies

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusion

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Intrapulmonary administration of bone-marrow derived M1/M2 macrophages to enhance the resolution of LPS-induced lung inflammation: noninvasive monitoring using free-breathing MR and CT imaging protocols

Eigen-disfigurement model for simulating plausible facial disfigurement after reconstructive surgery

Regression models for analyzing radiological visual grading studies – an empirical comparison

Improved R2* liver iron concentration assessment using a novel fuzzy c-mean clustering scheme

Local sparsity enhanced compressed sensing magnetic resonance imaging in uniform discrete curvelet domain

Pancreatic cancer accompanied by a moderate-sized pseudocyst with extrapancreatic growth