# Reliability of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging data in primary brain tumours: a comparison of Tofts and shutter speed models

## Abstract

### Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate the robustness of pharmacokinetic modelling of DCE-MRI brain tumour data and to ascertain reliable perfusion parameters through a model selection process and a stability test.

### Methods

DCE-MRI data of 14 patients with primary brain tumours were analysed using the Tofts model (TM), the extended Tofts model (ETM), the shutter speed model (SSM) and the extended shutter speed model (ESSM). A no-effect model (NEM) was implemented to assess overfitting of data by the other models. For each lesion, the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) was used to build a 3D model selection map. The variability of each pharmacokinetic parameter extracted from this map was assessed with a noise propagation procedure, resulting in voxel-wise distributions of the coefficient of variation (CV).

### Results

The model selection map over all patients showed NEM had the best fit in 35.5% of voxels, followed by ETM (32%), TM (28.2%), SSM (4.3%) and ESSM (< 0.1%). In analysing the reliability of *K*^{trans}, when considering regions with a CV < 20%, ≈ 25% of voxels were found to be stable across all patients. The remaining 75% of voxels were considered unreliable.

### Conclusions

The majority of studies quantifying DCE-MRI data in brain tumours only consider a single model and whole tumour statistics for the output parameters. Appropriate model selection, considering tissue biology and its effects on blood brain barrier permeability and exchange conditions, together with an analysis on the reliability and stability of the calculated parameters, is critical in processing robust brain tumour DCE-MRI data.

## Keywords

Glioma DCE-MRI Shutter speed model Tofts model Primary brain tumour## Introduction

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is a non-invasive methodology that allows tissue perfusion and permeability to be quantified through analysis of T_{1}-weighted MR images acquired before, during and after an intravenous (IV) injection of a gadolinium-based contrast agent (CA).

Nowadays, DCE-MRI finds application in a wide range of oncological studies. In brain tumours, the Tofts model (TM), also known as the standard model, together with its extended version (EMT), are regularly applied [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. There are a few examples of the application of shutter speed model (SSM) in brain tumours in the literature [7, 8] while it has been mainly implemented in the study of breast cancer [9], prostate cancer [10] and hepatocellular carcinoma [11]. The extended shutter speed model (ESSM), also called second generation shutter speed model, or BALDERO (blood agent level dependent and extravasation relaxation overview), has previously found applications only in hepatocellular carcinoma [12] and simulated data [13]. These four models assume that the CA passes readily between the intravascular compartment and the tissue interstitium. However, this assumption is not valid in the presence of the intact blood-brain barrier (BBB), where there is negligible leakage. In this case the CA will only affect the intravascular T_{1} value on first pass of the bolus. In addition, the vascular component of a brain tumour is heterogeneous and certain regions may not be perfused (e.g. necrotic regions). We therefore also implemented a no-effect model (NEM) which assumes negligible effect of the CA on the voxel T_{1} properties.

In the last decade, the number of pharmacokinetic studies of DCE-MRI brain data has increased as this quantification technique has been found to be indicative of the malignant grade of brain tumours [14]. However, two main issues need to be taken into account when analysing DCE-MRI data. Firstly, pharmacokinetic studies often show different and discordant results, thus bringing the reliability of this quantification technique into question [15, 16]. In fact, DCE-MRI data analysis is affected by (a) the acquisition protocol (trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution) [17] and (b) the quantification procedure. Furthermore, most studies present only results from application of a single pharmacokinetic model and the consequent statistical analysis of averaged values evaluated over the whole tumour volume [18, 19, 20]. This approach completely ignores the particularly heterogeneous nature of brain tumour vasculature and vascular permeability.

In this prospective study, we investigate the robustness of pharmacokinetic modelling of DCE-MRI brain data. We propose a method to identify reliable DCE-MRI data based on a model selection procedure, building on previous work by Bagher-Ebadian et al. [3], and a stability test: five different pharmacokinetic models (TM, ETM, SSM, ESSM and NEM) are assessed and the Akaike information criteria index is used for model selection; we then evaluate the stability of each parameter extracted from the model of choice, in terms of coefficients of variations (CVs), through a noise propagation procedure.

## Materials and methods

### Patient population

Fourteen patients (7 male, 7 female; aged 23–73 years, mean 40 years) with primary brain tumours were recruited to this study. Ethical approval was given by the local ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients had an MRI at diagnosis, prior to receiving any treatment. Following surgery, histopathological data showed three patients with WHO grade IV glioblastoma, two patients with WHO grade III astrocytoma, two patients with WHO grade III oligodendroglioma, three patients with WHO grade II astrocytoma, three patients with WHO grade II oligodendroglioma and one patient with a WHO grade I dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumour.

### DCE-MRI data acquisition

MR images were acquired on a 3-T Siemens Verio MRI system using a 32 channel head coil; including pre- and post-contrast T_{1}-weighted images, T_{2}-FLAIR images and a DCE sequence with a variable flip angle pre-contrast T_{1} map acquisition. The DCE-MRI protocol included five pre-contrast spoiled gradient recalled echo (SPGRE) 3D vibe sequences at five different flip angles (2, 8, 12, 15, 20, 26), and a dynamic 3D vibe sequence (TR = 3.34 ms, TE = 0.99 ms, flip angle = 26, FOV 240 × 240 mm, acquisition matrix 128 × 128, slice thickness 5 mm, slice gap 1 mm, 80 volumes). To obtain acquisitions before, during and after the injection of the CA, 0.1 mmol/kg body-weight gadolinium-diethylene triaminepentacetate (Gd-DTPA, Gadovist) was injected using a power injector on the fifth acquisition using a flow rate of 3 ml/s immediately followed by 20 ml saline solution. The 3D acquisition allowed us to cover the entire brain; 80 time points were acquired with an average temporal resolution of 2.89 s and a total acquisition time of ≈ 4 min.

### DCE-MRI data analysis

_{2}-FLAIR hyperintense regions and on a 2-cm-diameter circular region in normal-appearing contra-lateral white matter. DCE-MRI data were analysed using a semi-automated in-house software written in MATLAB (Mathworks, R2017a). Before the application of any of the aforementioned pharmacokinetic models, we calculated the relaxation rate at baseline (R

_{10}) and relaxed signal (M

_{0}) as 3D maps, with the Ernst formula (assuming TE < <T

_{2}*) using the set of SPGRE pre-contrast images acquired at different flip angles [21]:

_{0}(1 − E) can thus be estimated and continuing from [22], R

_{10}and M

_{0}can then be obtained through:

*R*

_{1}(

*t*) maps for each dynamic phase are calculated using signal intensity data from the post-contrast dynamic series:

*t*) − S(0)/M

_{0}sin(

*α*), B = (1 − E)/1 − E · cos(

*α*). S(0) and S(t) are the pre-contrast injection signal intensity and the signal at the dynamic phase

*t*, respectively [23].

The longitudinal relaxation rate is determined in order to calculate the concentration of the CA. This is done through a calibration between the concentration of CA [CA] and the measured H_{2}O MR signal. This can be modelled by either a linear or nonlinear relationship as described below.

#### Tofts model (TM)

^{trans}[24]. The TM, also called the standard model, assumes negligible plasma compartment and can describe weakly vascularized brain tissue. More importantly, it assumes a linear dependence of R

_{1}on [CA] (that is the equivalent of assuming the equilibrium transcytolemmal water exchange kinetics in the fast exchange limit(FXL)):

*r*

_{1}is the CA relaxivity.

*K*

^{trans}is the first-order rate constant for plasma to interstitium CA transport (min

^{−1}) and

*v*

_{e}is a measure of the EES volume fraction.

*K*

^{trans}and

*v*

_{e}results in the third pharmacokinetic parameter

*k*

_{ep}, which is the back flux rate constant (min

^{−1}). [CA

_{0}] and [CA

_{p}] are the concentration of CA in the ‘outside’ space (the extravascular extracellular space) and in the plasma, respectively. [CA

_{p}] is also called the arterial input function (AIF). The fitting of Eq. 6 was performed using the inbuilt MATLAB

*fminsearch*function, which uses the Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm as described in Lagarias et al. [26]. The minimization procedure is done voxel-wise in order to obtain a 3D map for each pharmacokinetic parameter. We set input values of 0.1 and 0.01 for the

*K*

^{trans}and

*v*

_{e}, respectively, and run the algorithm with 10,000 iterations and a tolerance of 10

^{−8}. The fitting procedure was also carried out with the user developed MATLAB function

*fminsearchbnd*[27]. This function takes into consideration boundaries in the output values settings, which were set so as to consider only positive values. A comparison between the two functions’ results was done in terms of goodness of fit by estimating the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) for each method using Eq. 7:

*n*is the number of data points,

*k*the number of fitted parameters and RSS is the residual sum of squares [28].

*K*

^{trans},

*k*

_{ep}and

*v*

_{e}maps where the value of each voxel was obtained from the fitting procedure with the best fit (lowest AIC) (Fig. 1).

#### Shutter speed model (SSM)

Both the TM and its extended version (2.3.3) embed the implicit assumption that equilibrium transcytolemmal water exchange (between the intracellular space and extracellular extravascular space) is infinitely fast, or that the system is in, what is called, the fast exchange limit [29]. Water exchange between the intracellular space and the extracellular extravascular space effects the degree of T_{1} shortening caused by CA. To account for this effect on the brain MRI signal amplitude, we applied the shutter speed model (SSM), which introduces a new pharmacokinetic parameter, the mean intracellular water molecule lifetime, τ_{i} [29].

*b*stands for the whole blood,

*p*for the plasma and

*h*the blood haematocrit. However, about half of the water in the blood is intracellular and cannot be accessed directly by the CA molecules [30]. The transport outside the erythrocytes therefore needs to be considered, as described by the two equilibria:

^{−7}s, and the linear Eq. 5 is suitable for homogeneous solutions. In the case of erythrocytes, Eq. 10 is also considered fast for some commonly measured [CA

_{p}] values [30, 31]. After extravasation, the CA is commonly distributed into the interstitial extracellular space, at a rate defined by:

*R*

_{1}*(t) is the rate constant of the extravascular water signal, r

_{10}is the interstitial CA relaxivity and

*p*

_{0}is the fraction of the extracellular tissue water. The application of Eq. 11 to biological tissues assumes that the interstitium is a homogeneous solution and that the system remains in the fast exchange limit. However, many studies have shown that, even though the equilibrium in Eq. 10 is fast, the FXL assumption is not true for all [CA

_{0}] values following a bolus injection [30]. [CA

_{0}] depends on the dimensions of the parenchymal cells that are generally much larger than erythrocytes and have a less water-permeable cytolemmae. Furthermore, tissue parenchyma cannot be considered as a single homogeneous solution and a single MRI voxel will constitute a number of compartments. The main result of this compartmentalization is given by:

*R*

_{1L}(t) is the long relaxation rate constant of the

*shutter speed model*.

*R*

_{1i}is the H

_{2}O rate constant in the absence of exchange of CA and τ

_{i}is the average intracellular lifetime of a water molecule. The SSM was fitted by substituting Eq. 12 in Eq. 6 using the MATLAB functions

*fminsearch*and

*fminsearchbnd*, similarly to the TM. The initial estimates for the SSM

*K*

^{trans}and

*v*

_{e}were taken as the outputs of the TM, while the initial estimate for τ

_{i}was set at 0.1 [13]. The final

*K*

^{trans},

*k*

_{ep},

*v*

_{e}and τ

_{i}maps were obtained from the fitting procedure with the best fit (lowest AIC value) as described in Fig. 1.

#### Extended Tofts model (ETM)

*v*

_{p}[32]. This model is able to distinguish the effects due to contrast leakage from those due to intravascular contrast. Eq. 6 becomes:

The ETM was fitted by substituting Eq. 13 in Eq. 6 using the MATLAB functions *fminsearch* and *fminsearchbnd*, similarly to the TM and SSM. The initial estimates for ETM *K*^{trans} and *v*_{e} were again taken from the output of the TM and the initial estimate for *v*_{p} was set at 0.01 [13]. The final K^{trans}, *k*_{ep}, *v*_{e} and *v*_{p} maps were obtained from the fitting procedure with the best fit (lowest AIC) as described in Fig. 1.

#### Extended shutter speed model (ESSM)

*v*

_{b}, the fractional blood volume and

*τ*

_{b}, the intravascular water molecule lifetime [13]. The contribution of the water signal comes from the three compartments (whole blood, EES and intracellular space) and is described by the matrix format of the Bloch equation [13]:

**M =**(M

_{b}, M

_{o}, M

_{i}) and

**C**= (M

_{b0}R

_{1b}, M

_{o0}R

_{1o}, M

_{i0}R

_{1i}) with the

^{1}H

_{2}O magnetization vector

**M**≈ to the signal

**S**. The exchange matrix

**X**is given by:

*b*,

*o*and

*i*stand for

*blood*,

*outside*space and

*intracellular*space, respectively.

*k*

_{bo}(= 1/τ

_{b}) represents the blood to interstitium transfer of water;

*k*

_{io}(= 1/τ

_{i}) the transfer of water from the intracellular space to the interstitium;

*k*

_{ob}(proportional to 1/τ

_{o}) the EES to blood transfer and

*k*

_{oi}the EES to intracellular transfer [13]. For a SPGR sequence, the solution to Eq. 13 is the matrix form of the Ernst-Anderson relationship [33] which assumes that if the change in [CA] is relatively small during the acquisition, at every discrete data acquisition time point, the relaxation time can be estimated using:

**I** is the identity matrix and **S**_{0} (= (S_{b0}, S_{o0}, S_{i0})) is the signal at baseline.

**S**= (S

_{b}, S

_{o}, S

_{i}) and \( \boldsymbol{A}={\left[\mathbf{I}-{e}^{-\boldsymbol{X} TR}\left(\cos\ \alpha \right)\right]}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{I}-{e}^{-\boldsymbol{X} TR}\right) \).

The model was fitted by substituting Eq. 18 into Eq. 17 using the MATLAB function *fminsearch* function. The outputs of the SSM model were used as the initial estimates for *K*^{trans} and *v*_{o} and one third of the measured signal was used as the initial estimate for S_{b0}, S_{o0} and S_{i0}. Furthermore the initial estimates for *k*_{bo}, *k*_{ob}, *k*_{oi} and *k*_{io} were taken from literature defined values as 1.2, 1.5, 1.1 and 1.2, respectively [13]. The following parameters were also derived: τ_{b} = 1/k_{bo}, τ_{i} = 1/k_{io}, v_{b} = (k_{ob} − k_{oi} − ((k_{io}/v_{o})f_{w}) − k_{io})/((k_{bo} + k_{io})/v_{o}) where *f*_{w} is tissue volume fraction accessible to mobile aqueous solutes (assumed to be a constant and set to 0.8) and *v*_{i} = 1 − (*v*_{b} + *v*_{o}) [13].

#### No-effect model (NEM)

The no-effect model describes the case where [CA] within a brain voxel is so low that there is no permeability or vascular filling. In this situation, the MR signal is assumed to be unperturbed by the injection of the gadolinium-based CA and, as a consequence, the longitudinal relaxation rate does not change from its baseline value (R_{10}). The system is therefore described by this value at all times such that the data is fitted by the constant R_{10}.

### Arterial input function (AIF)

_{1}-time curves by using the baseline signal intensity before the first pass of the CA as a reference, setting the haematocrit in the blood to 0.45, and getting the baseline blood

*T*

_{1}from the

*T*

_{10}map (Eq. 8).

### Model comparison

*K*

^{trans},

*k*

_{ep}and v

_{e}, where, for each voxel, the value is the result of the fitting of the model of choice (lowest AIC).

#### Stability of pharmacokinetic parameters

Once the model selection had been selected, the stability of each parameter within the selected models was evaluated in a simulation environment. Tissue curves were generated back from the extracted pharmacokinetic parameters and signal intensity curves were calculated with the inverse formula of Eq. 4. White Gaussian noise was added to the signal intensity curves using a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of 20. The SNR value for the simulated data was set by evaluating the SNR of the acquired data from the second and third phase of the dynamic acquisition sequence using the subtraction method [35]. The simulated noisy signal intensity curves were reconverted to noisy tissue concentration curves, and fitted to the selected pharmacokinetic model. This procedure was repeated 500 times for every kinetic parameter and the variability of each parameter was expressed in terms of coefficient of variation (CV): the percentage ratio between the standard deviation and the mean.

## Results

### Model selection and parameter variability

*K*

^{trans},

*k*

_{ep}and

*v*

_{e}, were built considering the model selection procedure. Within the final pharmacokinetic maps, each voxel was represented by the model with the best fit (lowest AIC) within that voxel. For each of these maps, the stability of each parameter and for each lesion was presented in terms of CV maps. Table 1 shows the results of the stability test on the final

*K*

^{trans}map. The total number of voxel of the lesion, for each patient, together with the average

*K*

^{trans}value evaluated over the whole tumour, is shown. Furthermore, the map was thresholded with a CV lower than 10, 20 and 50%, and the resultant percentage of preserved voxels (and their average value) is shown. Fig. 6 shows two final

*K*

^{trans}maps with their CV map overlaid on them (A and D).

K^{trans} stability test results

CV ≤ 10% | CV ≤ 20% | CV ≤ 50% | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Diagnosis | WHO grade | TOT n. voxel | Whole tumour | % n. voxel |
| % n. voxel |
| % n. voxel |
| |

P01 | Dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumour | I | 791 | 0.19 | 18 | 0.57 | 36 | 0.32 | 51 | 0.28 |

P02 | Astrocytoma | II | 3284 | 0.88 | 3 | 1.81 | 15 | 1.09 | 48 | 1.10 |

P03 | Oligodendroglioma | II | 1266 | 0.83 | 9 | 1.30 | 20 | 1.22 | 38 | 1.43 |

P04 | Oligodendroglioma | II | 2309 | 1.69 | 8 | 1.32 | 14 | 1.16 | 39 | 2.49 |

P05 | Astrocytoma | II | 4321 | 0.72 | 13 | 1.62 | 22 | 1.67 | 45 | 1.32 |

P06 | Astrocytoma | II | 2809 | 0.70 | 5 | 1.31 | 18 | 1.15 | 58 | 1.01 |

P07 | Astrocytoma | II | 2904 | 0.48 | 8 | 2.06 | 16 | 1.49 | 33 | 1.03 |

P08 | Oligodendroglioma | III | 1762 | 0.56 | 9 | 2.31 | 24 | 1.38 | 51 | 0.90 |

P09 | Oligodendroglioma | III | 3690 | 1.47 | 7 | 2.12 | 29 | 2.55 | 67 | 1.96 |

P10 | Astrocytoma | III | 8887 | 0.69 | 7 | 2.52 | 16 | 1.99 | 46 | 1.09 |

P11 | Astrocytoma | III | 1899 | 0.46 | 7 | 1.76 | 15 | 1.28 | 32 | 0.96 |

P12 | Glioblastoma | IV | 2704 | 0.25 | 13 | 0.42 | 22 | 0.50 | 38 | 0.47 |

P13 | Glioblastoma | IV | 6803 | 0.41 | 35 | 0.81 | 48 | 0.69 | 64 | 0.57 |

P14 | Glioblastoma | IV | 1958 | 1.46 | 46 | 1.31 | 64 | 1.25 | 81 | 1.41 |

## Discussion

In this study, we showed that in over one third of the brain tumours voxels (35.5%), standard model fitting of DCE-MRI data was inconclusive and therefore fitting these models to the data would lead to incorrect perfusion parameters. Considering a CV of 20%, only ≈ 25% of remaining voxels were found to be reliable. The reproducibility of this technique and, as a consequence, its reliability can be improved by improving the main sources of variability in quantitative DCE-MRI (the acquisition method and the quantification process) [16]. Nonetheless, in most studies, the intrinsic heterogeneity of the lesion is ignored by quantifying the perfusion with one single pharmacokinetic model and, more importantly, carrying out statistical analyses on one single whole tumour statistic (usually the average). In this study, we investigated the reliability of DCE-MRI focusing on the quantification analysis. We took into consideration the particularly heterogeneous nature of brain tumour vascular permeability due to the presence of the BBB, as well as existence of necrotic regions and provided a method to identify robust DCE-MRI data based on a model selection procedure and a stability test.

### DCE-MRI models

MR scanners usually employ post processing perfusion tools which fit DCE data with the TM. This model (together with its extended version [32]) considers the system in a fast exchange limit [36, 37], assuming an infinitely fast transcytolemmal water exchange between the EES and the intracellular space, which does not affect the overall signal decrease [36, 37]. Therefore, many studies on the cell membrane water permeability coefficient have shown FXL to be physiologically unreasonable and inconsistent [38]. The shutter speed model was introduced to reflect a more realistic tissue environment. The model accounts for the intercompartmental water exchange effect, modelling this non-infinitely-fast exchange with the mean intracellular water molecule lifetime τ_{i}. In 2005, Li et al. introduced a second generation of the shutter speed model which considers also a non-infinitely fast equilibrium transendothelial water exchange.

### Model comparison and stability

The heterogeneity that exists in brain tumours means that one model is insufficient in explaining the different biologies that exist in different tumour regions. Multiple pharmacokinetic models are required for a complete description of the tissue. This variability is testified by the model selection procedure which showed how, in a single slice of one tumour, multiple models perform better. This result confirms the study of Bagher-Ebadian where they implemented a selection method based on nested models [3]. They found that in the necrotic core of the tumour, models describing vascular filling with no microvascular leakage (similar to the TM) and leakage without vascular reabsorption were selected because of the lack of blood flow. They also hypothesised that the model describing leakage with reabsorption (similar to the ETM) would be selected in the fast growing rims of the lesion. Our results show that there are a number of regions in the tumour where the CA exudation is prevented by the BBB and where the concentration of CA is so low that the evidence of perfusion is missing. In this case, the use of the NEM is recommended as the use of different models could result only in overfitting the data. In fact, our results showed that no leakage of the CA into the interstitium and the lack of flow of the CA through the tissue made the NEM the model of choice for the majority of regions, particularly in the non-enhancing lesions (37.5% of voxels). The result is very close to the ETM (32%), which was the model of choice in the enhancing lesions (54.8%). This suggests that, in areas where there is enhancement, a model with three parameters performs better and that the choice is dependent on the underlying state of the tissue. In fact, both the ETM and SSM are fitted by three parameters but the third parameter is very different between the two models (*v*_{p} for the ETM describing a vascular component in the tissue, and τ_{i} for the SSM describing the transcytolemmal water exchange). Furthermore, with the implementation of the ESSM, we saw that the transendothelial water exchange did not have any impact on the signal (compared with parameters derived by the fitting of simpler models). It is necessary to consider that the ESSM required nine parameters to be fitted and that the cost of fitting extra parameters is often contrary to the principle of parsimony. In fact, in fitting data to a noise-limited dataset, the estimation could be very poor and dependent on the optimization procedure itself (the initial conditions, for example) [3]. We compared the AIC values from the different fitting procedures to check whether a model with more parameters is more appropriate than a simple one. The ESSM was selected as the model of choice by < 0.1% of voxels, indicating that a model with three parameters performed better in the description of brain tumours and further confirming the poor quality of fit observed for the ESSM model. Our outcome agreed with the results of Duan et al. [39]. Using representative in silico and clinical (cervical cancer) DCE-MRI data, they demonstrated the sensitivity of complicated models (parameters > 3) to noise and their decreasing probability of being selected in low signal-to-noise data [39].

The reliability of DCE-MRI data is not only based on the goodness of fit of the chosen pharmacokinetic model, but also on the robustness of the extracted parameters. For this reason, we assessed, for each lesion and for each parameter, the coefficient of variation. We worked in a simulation environment where we added Gaussian noise to our signal and we fitted the noisy curves 500 times. This procedure resulted with a heterogeneous distribution of CVs that was not linked to contrast enhancement. In fact, Fig. 6 shows the plot of four different tissue activity curves together with the *K*^{trans} value and its CV in an enhancing and non-enhancing tumour. The curves in Fig. 6b, c belong to the same enhancing lesion and while they correspond to similar *K*^{trans} values of 0.81 and 0.52 [1/min], they varied by 12 and 128%, respectively. On the other hand, the curves in Fig. 6e, f belong to the same non-enhancing lesion and show regions with both a low (4%) and a high (97%) variability.

We set three different thresholds for the CV to evaluate the variability of the *K*^{trans}. Table 1 shows the percentage of voxels and their relative mean *K*^{trans} value at different CVs thresholds (10, 20 and 50%), for each lesion and for each patient. Higher grade glioma tend to have more voxels with a lower CV and also a more stable value of *K*^{trans} while, for some of the other patients, the mean value of *K*^{trans} is highly affected by the portion of voxels taken into consideration (P04, P07). This result confirmed the improper use of one average value in statistical comparisons of brain tumours. Not only because of the heterogeneity of the tissue under investigation but also, and more importantly, because it is affected by the reliability of fit within voxels.

Finally, Fig. 6 gives a graphical representation of this effect showing *K*^{trans} values under the 20% threshold of CV covering only 25% of voxels (an average percentage value evaluated among all patients). This result suggested that only this selection of voxels represents robust values, which can be used in the following statistical analyses, as, more importantly, in clinical evaluations. The selection of the threshold that makes DCE-MRI robust is, however, dependent on the effect size that is being measured and hence will vary across studies.

The main limitation of this study is the small size of the dataset. Furthermore, the sensitivity of DCE-MRI data to water exchange effect was reduced by the 26° flip angle acquisition (exchange-minimized approach) [40]. As a consequence, the precision of the τ_{i} parameter extracted might be low.

In conclusion, DCE-MRI methods hold great promise for quantitative in vivo evaluation of permeability and vascular properties under different pathophysiological conditions. It allows us to identify, and quantitatively measure, smaller changes in permeability for pathological conditions effecting the BBB, than would be observed through visuassessment of post-contrast T_{1}-weighted images. Different models yield different pharmacokinetic parameters and, for this reason, a model selection is critical for the appropriate analysis of DCE-MRI time courses based on the regional tissue biology, specifically permeability and vasculature. Future work needs to assess the physiological basis for each model in the reliable selection of DCE-MRI data. The applicability of each model depends on the physiology, anatomy and heterogeneity of the tumour and the tumour microenvironment. In addition, due to the noisy nature of DCE-MRI data, a model selection procedure alone is not enough: pharmacokinetic parameters need to be validated with a stability test in order to give only robust results for statistical analyses and clinical evaluation.

## Notes

### Funding

This work was funded in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), the Brain Tumour Charity and the Brain Tumour Research Campaign.

### Compliance with ethical standards

### Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

### Ethical approval

The study was reviewed and approved by the London–Fulham Research Ethics Committee.

### Informed consent

Written and informed consent was obtained from all participants before recruitment to the study and all data was anonymised in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation.

## References

- 1.Haris M, Gupta RK, Singh A, Husain N, Husain M, Pandey CM, Srivastava C, Behari S, Rathore RK (2008) Differentiation of infective from neoplastic brain lesions by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Neuroradiology 50(6):531–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-008-0378-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Jia Z, Geng D, Xie T, Zhang J, Liu Y (2012) Quantitative analysis of neovascular permeability in glioma by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. J Clin Neurosci 19(6):820–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2011.08.030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bagher-Ebadian H, Jain R, Nejad-Davarani SP, Mikkelsen T, Lu M, Jiang Q, Scarpace L, Arbab AS, Narang J, Soltanian-Zadeh H (2012) Model selection for DCE-T1 studies in glioblastoma. Magn Reson Med 68(1):241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Ferl GZ, Xu L, Friesenhahn M, Bernstein LJ, Barboriak DP, Port RE (2010) An automated method for nonparametric kinetic analysis of clinical DCE-MRI data: application to glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. Magn Reson Med 63(5):1366–1375. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.22335 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Zhu XP, Li KL, Kamaly-Asl ID, Checkley DR, Tessier JJ, Waterton JC, Jackson A (2000) 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 11(6):575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.O'Connor JP, Jackson A, Parker GJ, Jayson GC (2007) DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Br J Cancer 96(2):189–195. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603515 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Rooney WD, Li X, Sammi MK, Bourdette DN, Neuwelt EA, Springer CS Jr (2015) Mapping human brain capillary water lifetime: high-resolution metabolic neuroimaging. NMR Biomed 28(6):607–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3294 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.Li X, Rooney WD, Varallyay CG, Gahramanov S, Muldoon LL, Goodman JA, Tagge IJ, Selzer AH, Pike MM, Neuwelt EA, Springer CS Jr (2010) Dynamic-contrast-enhanced-MRI with extravasating contrast reagent: rat cerebral glioma blood volume determination. J Magn Reson 206(2):190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmr.2010.07.004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Inglese M, Cavaliere C, Monti S, Forte E, Incoronato M, Nicolai E, Salvatore M, Aiello M (2019) A multi-parametric PET/MRI study of breast cancer: evaluation of DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic models and correlation with diffusion and functional parameters. NMR Biomed 32(1):e4026. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Li X, Priest RA, Woodward WJ, Tagge IJ, Siddiqui F, Huang W, Rooney WD, Beer TM, Garzotto MG, Springer CS (2013) Feasibility of shutter-speed DCE-MRI for improved prostate cancer detection. Magn Reson Med 69(1):171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Jajamovich GH, Huang W, Besa C, Li X, Afzal A, Dyvorne HA, Taouli B (2016) DCE-MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma: perfusion quantification with Tofts model versus shutter-speed model—initial experience. MAGMA 29(1):49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Lee SH, Hayano K, Zhu AX, Sahani DV, Yoshida H (2015) Water-exchange-modified kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as prognostic biomarkers of survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with antiangiogenic monotherapy. PLoS One 10(9):e0136725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Li X, Rooney WD, Springer CS Jr (2005) A unified magnetic resonance imaging pharmacokinetic theory: intravascular and extracellular contrast reagents. Magn Reson Med 54(6):1351–1359. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20684 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Roberts HC, Roberts TP, Brasch RC, Dillon WP (2000) Quantitative measurement of microvascular permeability in human brain tumors achieved using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histologic grade. Am J Neuroradiol 21(5):891–899PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Liang J, Liu D, Gao P, Zhang D, Chen H, Shi C, Luo L (2018) Diagnostic values of DCE-MRI and DSC-MRI for differentiation between high-grade and low-grade gliomas: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 25(3):338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Kim H (2018) Variability in quantitative DCE-MRI: sources and solutions. J Nat Sci 4(1)Google Scholar
- 17.Guo Y, Zhu Y, Goud LS, Lebel RM, Shiroishi M (2015) High-resolution whole-brain dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using compressed sensing. In: Biomedical optics & medical imaging. SPIE Newsroom, BellinghamGoogle Scholar
- 18.Fahlstrom M, Fransson S, Blomquist E, Nyholm T, Larsson EM (2018) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging may act as a biomarker for vascular damage in normal appearing brain tissue after radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. Acta Radiol Open 7(11). https://doi.org/10.1177/2058460118808811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Little RA, Barjat H, Hare JI, Jenner M, Watson Y, Cheung S, Holliday K, Zhang W, O'Connor JPB, Barry ST, Puri S, Parker GJM, Waterton JC (2018) Evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI biomarkers for stratified cancer medicine: how do permeability and perfusion vary between human tumours? Magn Reson Imaging 46:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2017.11.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Jiang JS, Hua Y, Zhou XJ, Shen DD, Shi JL, Ge M, Geng QN, Jia ZZ (2018) Quantitative assessment of tumor cell proliferation in brain gliomas with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Acad Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Yuan J, Chow SK, Yeung DK, Ahuja AT, King AD (2012) Quantitative evaluation of dual-flip-angle T1 mapping on DCE-MRI kinetic parameter estimation in head and neck. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2(4):245–253. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2012.11.04 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Liberman G, Louzoun Y, Ben Bashat D (2014) T(1) mapping using variable flip angle SPGR data with flip angle correction. J Magn Reson Imaging 40(1):171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24373 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Li KL, Zhu XP, Waterton J, Jackson A (2000) Improved 3D quantitative mapping of blood volume and endothelial permeability in brain tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 12(2):347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Tofts PS, Kermode AG (1991) Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 17(2):357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Kety SS (1965) Observations on the validity of a two compartmental model of the cerebral circulation. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 14:85–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Lagarias JC, Reeds JA, Wright MH, Wright PE (1998) Convergence properties of the Nelder--Mead simplex method in low dimensions. SIAM J Optim 9(1):112–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.D’Errico J (2012) fminsearchbnd. 1.4.0.0 edn., MathWorks file exchange. https://in.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/8277-fminsearchbnd-fminsearchcon. Accessed 10 May 2019
- 28.Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19(6):716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Yankeelov TE, Rooney WD, Li X, Springer CS Jr (2003) Variation of the relaxographic “shutter-speed” for transcytolemmal water exchange affects the CR bolus-tracking curve shape. Magn Reson Med 50(6):1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.10624 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Landis CS, Li X, Telang FW, Molina PE, Palyka I, Vetek G, Springer CS Jr (1999) Equilibrium transcytolemmal water-exchange kinetics in skeletal muscle in vivo. Magn Reson Med 42(3):467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Donahue KM, Burstein D, Manning WJ, Gray ML (1994) Studies of Gd-DTPA relaxivity and proton exchange rates in tissue. Magn Reson Med 32(1):66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, Larsson HB, Lee TY, Mayr NA, Parker GJ, Port RE, Taylor J, Weisskoff RM (1999) Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10(3):223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Buckley DL (2002) Uncertainty in the analysis of tracer kinetics using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Magn Reson Med 47(3):601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Rijpkema M, Kaanders JH, Joosten FB, van der Kogel AJ, Heerschap A (2001) Method for quantitative mapping of dynamic MRI contrast agent uptake in human tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 14(4):457–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.McRobbie DW, Moore EA, Graves MJ, Prince MR (2006) MRI from picture to proton, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 36.Bergamino M, Bonzano L, Levrero F, Mancardi G, Roccatagliata L (2014) A review of technical aspects of T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in human brain tumors. Phys Med 30(6):635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Heye AK, Culling RD, Hernández MCV, Thrippleton MJ, Wardlaw JM (2014) Assessment of blood–brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. A systematic review. NeuroImage Clin 6:262–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Quirk JD, Bretthorst GL, Duong TQ, Snyder AZ, Springer CS, Ackerman JJ, Neil JJ (2003) Equilibrium water exchange between the intra-and extracellular spaces of mammalian brain. Magn Reson Med 50(3):493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Duan C, Kallehauge JF, Bretthorst GL, Tanderup K, Ackerman JJ, Garbow JR (2017) Are complex DCE-MRI models supported by clinical data? Magn Reson Med 77(3):1329–1339. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26189 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Buckley DL (2018) Shutter-speed dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: is it fit for purpose? Magn Reson Med 81:976–988. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27456 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access** This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.