Demonstrates improved detection of treatment-induced vascular changes in mice using DCE-MRF, suggesting enhanced clinical relevance.
Purpose Dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI (DCE‐MRI) can assess tumor perfusion using pharmacokinetic models. However, poor DCE‐MRI reproducibility from reliance on conventional T 1 ‐weighted MRI has limited clinical translation. We evaluated whether Dynamic Contrast Enhanced‐Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (DCE‐MRF), which directly generates quantitative T 1 relaxation time constant maps, provides improved precision and statistical power for detecting treatment‐induced vascular changes compared to conventional DCE‐MRI. Methods Twenty female mice bearing orthotopic 4 T1 breast tumors were randomly assigned to DCE‐MRF ( n = 12) or conventional DCE‐MRI ( n = 8) cohorts. Both methods acquired matched spatial and temporal resolution (23‐s) T 1 measurements at baseline, 3 h, and 48 h post‐treatment with combretastatin A4 phosphate (120 mg/kg), a known vascular disrupting agent. Perfusion assessments were obtained with a pharmacokinetic Linear Reference Region Model ( RK trans and k ep,T ) and model‐independent initial area under the curve assessments and compared using Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests and Hedges' g effect sizes. Results DCE‐MRF demonstrated 1.3‐to‐5.1‐fold larger effect sizes for RK trans across all regions and timepoint comparisons, and 1.3‐to‐1.9‐fold larger effect sizes for tumor rim k ep,T compared to conventional DCE‐MRI. RK trans and k ep,T at 3 h post‐treatment in all regions, detected significant vascular recovery for whole tumor RK trans and both whole tuomor and tumor rim for k ep,T at 48 h, whereas DCE‐MRI only detected significant changes at 3 h. Conclusions DCE‐MRF's improved measurement precision and increased effect size translates directly to enhanced statistical power for detecting treatment‐induced vascular changes, positioning it as a more reproducible tumor perfusion assessment for animal models and eventually cancer patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
MacAskill et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: