Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print September 28, 2005, 10.1148/radiol.2372041638
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thoeny, H. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ni, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thoeny, H. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ni, Y.

Effect of Vascular Targeting Agent in Rat Tumor Model: Dynamic Contrast-enhanced versus Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging1

Harriet C. Thoeny, MD, Frederik De Keyzer, MSc, Vincent Vandecaveye, MD, Feng Chen, MD, Xihe Sun, MD, Hilde Bosmans, PhD, Robert Hermans, MD, PhD, Eric K. Verbeken, MD, PhD, Chris Boesch, MD, PhD, Guy Marchal, MD, PhD, Willy Landuyt, PhD and Yicheng Ni, MD, PhD

1 From the Departments of Radiology (H.C.T., F.D.K., V.V., F.C., X.S., H.B., R.H., G.M., Y.N.) and Pathology (E.K.V.), University Hospitals Leuven, Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; Departments of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology (H.C.T.) and Clinical Research (C.B.), University Hospital of Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland; and Laboratory of Experimental Radiobiology/LEO, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (W.L.). Received September 23, 2004; revision requested November 26; revision received January 12, 2005; accepted February 1. H.C.T. supported by a grant from the Bernese Cancer League and by the Kurt and Senta Hermann Foundation. Address correspondence to R.H. (e-mail: robert.hermans{at}uz.kuleuven.ac.be).



View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Graph shows mean tumor volume before and at three time points after combretastatin (CA-4-P) administration, as measured on transverse T1-weighted images. Whiskers indicate the standard deviation.

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Graph shows change (as a percentage) in ADClow (b = 0, 50, and 100 sec/mm2), ADChigh (b = 500, 750, and 1000 sec/mm2), and ADCperf (ADClow – ADChigh) over time after injection of combretastatin (CA-4-P), compared with mean values at baseline. Whiskers indicate the standard deviation.

 


View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Graph shows change (as a percentage) over time, after intraperitoneal injection of combretastatin (CA-4-P), in mean values for ADCperf calculated from the diffusion-weighted MR images and in the volume transfer constant k and initial slope of the contrast enhancement–time curve calculated from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images. Whiskers indicate the standard deviation.

 


View larger version (74K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Top: Transverse dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images acquired in a randomly chosen tumor (subcutaneous rat rhabdomyosarcoma), after the first pass of the contrast medium bolus (at 120 sec), during volumetric interpolated breath-hold examinations (6.97/2.59) 6 hours before (A) and 1 hour, 6 hours, 2 days, and 9 days after (B–E) combretastatin injection. Change in contrast enhancement over time is difficult to appreciate visually. Bottom: Corresponding graph of contrast enhancement–time curves (CTC) shows that the initial slope is much lower in B–D than in A and E.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2005 by the Radiological Society of North America.