Back

Effect of image registration on the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters from DCE-MRI of patients with esophageal cancer

Lee, J.; Ma, J.; Carter, B.; Court, L.; Lin, S.

2022-12-20 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2022.12.17.22283621 medRxiv
Show abstract

We investigated the effectiveness of the most commonly used registration methods (deformable and rigid-body registrations) with different reference images on pharmacokinetic parameters estimated from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of esophageal cancer patients. We obtained DCE-MRI images from 10 patients with esophageal cancer. Both rigid-body and deformable registrations of the images were performed on DCE-MRI images at different time points as reference images before the pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated. The deformable registration used non-rigid B-spline transforms in a multi-resolution scheme, and Euler transform were used for the rigid body registration. A nonparametric statistical test and the intra-class correlation coefficient assessed the consistency and reproducibility of the pharmacokinetic parameters estimated with both registration methods and using images acquired at different time points. Kruskal-Wallis testing demonstrated significant differences (p < 0.05) in all the estimated parameters for deformable registration but no significant differences (p > 0.78) for rigid-body registration. The intra-class correlation coefficient for rigid-body registration was higher than that for deformable registration for each pharmacokinetic parameter, indicating that, for rigid-body registration, the parameter values from different reference images of one patient tended to be similar to each other. In contrast, the values for deformable registration were more variable. In conclusion, the choice of the reference image of deformable registration significantly affected the estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters, and rigid-body registration showed small variations in pharmacokinetic parameters over the choice of the reference images for small motion artifacts of small distal esophageal cancer on DCE-MRI.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
29.2%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
8.9%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 8%
8.9%
4
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
Physics in Medicine & Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
6
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.6%
7
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
8
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
9
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
10
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
11
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
12
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
13
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
14
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
15
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
16
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
17
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
18
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
19
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
20
Neuroscience Bulletin
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.9%
23
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
24
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
25
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
26
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.7%