Dynamic Perfusion MRI Versus Perfusion Scintigraphy: Prediction of Postoperative Lung Function in Patients with Lung Cancer
Yoshiharu Ohno1,
Hiroto Hatabu2,
Takanori Higashino1,
Daisuke Takenaka3,
Hirokazu Watanabe1,
Yoshihiro Nishimura4,
Masahiro Yoshimura5 and
Kazuro Sugimura1
1 Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2
Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
2 Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline
Ave., Boston, MA 02115.
3 Department of Radiology, Kobe Ekisaikai Hospital, 1-21-1 Manabigaoka,
Tarumi-ku, Kobe 655-30004, Japan.
4 Division of Cardiovascular and Respiratory Medicine, Department of Internal
Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017,
Japan.
5 Division of Cardiovascular, Thoracic and Pediatric Surgery, Kobe University
Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
View larger version (146K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1A. —Example of region of interest generated in lung field on one
of 10 slices and gamma variate fit of signal intensity–time curve.
Dynamic perfusion MRI (TR/TE, 2.5/0.6; flip angle, 40°) shows region of
interest generated in left upper lung field excluding large vessels.
|
|
View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1B. —Example of region of interest generated in lung field on one
of 10 slices and gamma variate fit of signal intensity–time curve. Graph
of signal intensity–time curve shows change in MRI signal intensity
(•) after injection of contrast medium and gamma variate fit ( ) for
first pass.
|
|
View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. —Scatterplot shows correlation of regional perfusion between
MRI (QMRI) and perfusion scintigraphy
(QPS) in each region of interest (ROI). Excellent
correlation existed between QMRI and
QPS in each ROI (r2 = 0.71, p
< 0.0001).
|
|
View larger version (29K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. —Scatterplot shows mean and limits of agreement of regional
perfusion between MRI (QMRI) and perfusion scintigraphy
(QPS) in each region of interest (ROI). Mean was 1.4%.
Limits of agreement between QMRI and
QPS in each ROI were between –5.2% and 8.0%.
|
|
View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. —Scatterplot shows correlation between postoperative forced
expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) and postoperative lung functions
predicted by MRI (FEV1,MRI) in each patient. Excellent correlation
existed between postoperative FEV1 and predicted
FEV1,MRI in each patient (r2 = 0.86, p
< 0.0001).
|
|
View larger version (27K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. —Scatterplot shows limits of agreement between postoperative
forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) and postoperative lung
functions predicted by MRI in each patient. Mean was 0.9%. Limits of agreement
between postoperative FEV1 and predicted FEV1,MRI in
each patient ranged between –9.5% and 11.3%. Dotted line = mean + 2 SD,
dashed line = mean–2 SD.
|
|
View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6. —Scatterplot shows correlation between postoperative forced
expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) and forced expiratory volume in 1
sec predicted by perfusion scintigraphy (FEV1,PS) in each patient.
Excellent correlation existed between postoperative FEV1 and
predicted FEV in each patient (r2 1,PS = 0.79,
p < 0.0001).
|
|
View larger version (26K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7. —Scatterplot shows limits of agreement between postoperative
forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) and forced expiratory
volume in 1 sec predicted by perfusion scintigraphy (FEV1,PS) in
each patient. Mean was 2.1%. Limits of agreement between postoperative
FEV1 and predicted FEV1,PS in each patient ranged
between –11.1% and 15.3%. Dotted line = mean + 2 SD, dashed line =
mean–2 SD.
|
|
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Copyright © 2004 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.
