Dual-input two-compartment pharmacokinetic model of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in hepatocellular carcinoma

Figure 1 Concentration-time curve of the portal vein was an inferior fit (arrow) compared to that of the abdominal aorta without non-rigid registration (A); however, the concentration-time curve of the portal vein was a better fit after non-rigid registration (B).

Figure 2 ROI 1 was placed on the abdominal aorta near the entrance of the celiac trunk, replacing the hepatic artery, and ROI 2 was placed on the portal vein as a dual input model to fit the vascular input function; the concentration-time curve maps of the ROI 1 and ROI 2 are shown to the right.

Figure 3 Lesion of the hepatocellular carcinoma in a 68-year-old man on dynamic contrast-enhanced T1WI (A); pharmacokinetic parameter map (K_trans, k_ep, v_e, v_p, and hepatic perfusion index) derived from the dual-input extended Tofts model (B-F), and the pharmacokinetic parameter maps (F_p, PS, k_ep, v_e, v_p, and hepatic perfusion index) derived from the dual-input 2-compartment exchange model (G-L).

Figure 4 Scatterplots showing the correlation between K_trans (min^-1) obtained with the extended Tofts model and F_p (A) and PS (B) obtained with the 2-compartment exchange model.

Figure 5 Scatterplot showing the significant correlation of Kep estimated with the extended Tofts model and the 2-compartment exchange model.

Figure 6 Scatterplot showing that v_p values are correlated between the extended Tofts model and the 2-compartment exchange model.

Figure 7 Scatterplot showing the correlation of hepatic perfusion index estimated with the extended Tofts model and the 2-compartment exchange model.

Figure 8 Scatterplot showing that v_e is not correlated in the extended Tofts model and the 2-compartment exchange model.