Simulation-based comparison of two approaches frequently used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

Eur Radiol. 2010 Feb;20(2):432-42. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1556-6. Epub 2009 Sep 1.


The purpose was to compare two approaches for the acquisition and analysis of dynamic-contrast-enhanced MRI data with respect to differences in the modelling of the arterial input-function (AIF), the dependency of the model parameters on physiological parameters and their numerical stability. Eight hundred tissue concentration curves were simulated for different combinations of perfusion, permeability, interstitial volume and plasma volume based on two measured AIFs and analysed according to the two commonly used approaches. The transfer constants (Approach 1) K (trans) and (Approach 2) k (ep) were correlated with all tissue parameters. K (trans) showed a stronger dependency on perfusion, and k (ep) on permeability. The volume parameters (Approach 1) v (e) and (Approach 2) A were mainly influenced by the interstitial and plasma volume. Both approaches allow only rough characterisation of tissue microcirculation and microvasculature. Approach 2 seems to be somewhat more robust than 1, mainly due to the different methods of CA administration.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Algorithms
  • Computer Simulation
  • Contrast Media / pharmacokinetics*
  • Humans
  • Image Enhancement / methods
  • Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / methods*
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging / methods*
  • Microcirculation / physiology*
  • Microvessels / anatomy & histology*
  • Microvessels / physiology*
  • Models, Cardiovascular*
  • Models, Statistical
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Sensitivity and Specificity


  • Contrast Media