分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
临床研究
初探酰胺质子转移加权和T2 mapping对直肠癌化疗和未化疗的定量对比研究
董宛 陈安良 刘爱连 刘昀松 林涛 王家正 宋清伟

Cite this article as: Dong W, Chen AL, Liu AL, et al. Comparation of amide proton transfer-weighted and T2 mapping in quantifying rectal cancer with and without chemotherapy: a preliminary study[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 12(7): 24-28.本文引用格式:董宛, 陈安良, 刘爱连, 等. 初探酰胺质子转移加权和T2 mapping对直肠癌化疗和未化疗的定量对比研究[J]. 磁共振成像, 2021, 12(7): 24-28. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.07.005.


[摘要] 目的 探讨酰胺质子转移加权(amide proton transfer-weighted,APTw)和T2 mapping定量参数对直肠癌化疗和未化疗病灶对比研究的价值。材料与方法 回顾性收集46例行盆腔3.0 T MRI扫描的直肠癌患者信息,分为化疗组15例(A组)和未化疗组31例(B组)。扫描序列包括APTw、T2 mapping等,由2名放射科医师参照T2加权成像(T2 weighted imaging,T2WI)、扩散加权成像(diffusion weighted imaging,DWI)和动态对比增强MRI (dynamic contrast enhancement MRI,DCE-MRI)图像提供的解剖位置,选取APTw和T2 mapping参数图像对应的轴位最大病灶层面,分别将三个ROI放置在此层面的病灶上,测量其APTw值和T2值。采用组间相关系数(inter-class correlation coefficient,ICC)检验2名医师所测得数据的一致性;采用独立样本t检验或Mann-Whitney U检验比较两组APTw、T2值的差异;应用Logistic回归计算APTw-T2 mapping联合参数的预测值;分别评估两组间有差异的参数的ROC曲线。应用Delong检验比较APTw、T2 mapping及联合参数之间的效能差异。结果 2名医师所测量的各参数一致性良好(ICC值均>0.75)。A组和B组的APTw值、T2值分别为1.52%±0.56%、(72.67±8.56) ms和2.88% (0.77%)、86.31 (8.77) ms,A组均低于B组(P<0.05)。APTw值和T2值区分A组与B组病变的AUC分别为0.934和0.923。APTw和T2值区分两组的敏感度、特异度和阈值分别为93.5%、93.3%、2.11%和90.3%、86.7%和80.79 ms。APTw-T2 mapping预测值鉴别两组的AUC、敏感度和特异度分别为0.981、100%和96.8%。Delong检验显示APTw-T2 mapping、APTw和T2 mapping两两之间AUC的差异无统计学意义。结论 APTw和T2 mapping均能很好地定量区分直肠癌化疗与未化疗的病灶。
[Abstract] Objective To explore the value of amide proton transfer-weighted (APTw) and T2 mapping quantitative parameters in the comparative study of chemotherapy and non-chemotherapy lesions of rectal cancer. Materials andMethods Data from 46 patients with rectal cancer undergoing pelvic MRI at 3.0 T in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed, including 15 cases with chemotherapy (group A) and 31 cases without chemotherapy (group B). Scanning sequences included ATPw, T2 mapping and so on. Referring to the anatomical location obtained on T2 weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast enhancement MRI (DCE-MRI) images, the axial largest lesions corresponding to APTw and T2 mapping parameter images were selected, and three ROI were placed at this level, respectively, by two radiologists. The values of APTw and T2 were measured. The data were tested with inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to evaluate inter-observer agreement. Independent sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U was used to test the difference of APTw and T2 values between the two groups. Logistic regression was used to calculate the predicted value of APTw-T2 mapping joint parameters. The ROC curves of the parameters that were different between the two groups were evaluated respectively. Delong test was used to compare the efficacy among APTw, T2 mapping and their combined parameters.Results The data consistency of two doctors was good (ICC>0.75). The APTw and T2 values in group A were 1.52%±0.56% and (72.67±8.56) ms, respectively, which were both significantly lower (P<0.05) than those in group B [APTw: 2.88% (0.77%), and T2: 86.31 (8.77) ms]. AUC of APTw and T2 values to differentiate group A and B were 0.934 and 0.923, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and threshold value of APTw and T2 values in differentiating the two groups were 93.5%, 93.3%, 2.11% and 90.3%, 86.7%, 80.79 ms, respectively. For the predicted value of APTw-T2 mapping of the two groups, the AUC, sensitivity and specificity were 0.981, 100% and 96.8%, respectively. Delong test showed that there was no significant difference in AUC among APTw-T2 mapping, APTw and T2 mapping.Conclusions Both APTw and T2 mapping can quantitatively distinguish rectal cancer lessions with chemotherapy from no chemotherapy.
[关键词] 磁共振成像;酰胺质子转移加权;T2 mapping;直肠癌;化疗
[Keywords] magnetic resonance imaging;amide proton transfer-weighted;T2 mapping;rectal cancer;chemotherapy

董宛 1   陈安良 1   刘爱连 1*   刘昀松 1   林涛 1   王家正 2   宋清伟 1  

1 大连医科大学附属第一医院放射科,大连 116011

2 飞利浦医疗临床科学部,北京 100000

刘爱连,E-mail:liuailian@dmu.edu.cn

全体作者均声明无利益冲突。


收稿日期:2021-02-04
接受日期:2021-03-19
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.07.005
本文引用格式:董宛, 陈安良, 刘爱连, 等. 初探酰胺质子转移加权和T2 mapping对直肠癌化疗和未化疗的定量对比研究[J]. 磁共振成像, 2021, 12(7): 24-28. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.07.005.

       结直肠癌是世界癌症相关死亡的主要原因之一[1],结直肠癌最好发于直肠,早期直肠癌可无明显症状,多数患者被发现时已是中晚期。局部进展期直肠癌(locally advanced rectal cancer,LARC)的标准治疗方案是新辅助化疗+直肠癌根治术+辅助化疗,其中新辅助化疗(neoadjuvant chemotherapy,NCT)的目的在于提高手术切除率和保肛率,延长患者无病生存期[2]。NCT疗效的评估一直是临床上关注的问题。对于NCT效果良好的患者,临床也越来越多的采取保守治疗作为手术切除的替代方法[3]。NCT疗效评估金标准为病理学分级,是一种侵入性方法,且只能在术后获取。因此,NCT效果的术前评估越来越重要。

       MRI是一种非侵入性诊断直肠癌的有效手段,可对病灶进行早期分期[4]。然而,常规的MRI序列难以区分残存病灶与治疗后的纤维化改变[5]。酰胺质子转移加权(amide proton transfer-weighted,APTw)成像和T2 mapping是两种不同的新型MRI技术。其中,APTw是一种内源性化学交换饱和转移(chemical exchange saturation transfer,CEST)成像技术,通过检测内源性可移动蛋白或多肽的酰胺质子与大量水质子之间的交换,从而评估细胞内蛋白质浓度和pH值的变化,已被用于脑和肝脏等组织的研究[6, 7]。T2 mapping能非侵入性地可视化和量化组织成分(如水肿、纤维化),不需要对比剂,具有成为“无创性活检”的潜力[8, 9]。目前,采用APTw和T2 mapping定量评估直肠癌化疗效果的研究较少。因此,本研究将探讨采用这两种技术定量评估直肠癌化疗后和未化疗病灶差异的可行性,初步探索直肠癌化疗疗效评估技术,为临床预测直肠癌化疗疗效提供辅助手段。

1 材料与方法

1.1 患者资料

       收集2019年4月至2020年11月于大连医科大学附属第一医院行直肠3.0 T MRI的患者,进行回顾性研究。入组标准(同时满足以下条件):(1)经组织病理学证实为直肠腺癌;(2)依据欧洲肿瘤内科学会指南(European Socity for Medicaal Oncology,ESMO)对T3期及以上直肠癌行XELOX化疗,至少化疗1周期且末次化疗结束后10周内行MRI检查者(化疗组,即A组);或检查前未做任何治疗者(B组);(3)在本院行直肠3.0 T MR常规序列及APTw、T2 mapping序列扫描,图像完整且质量优。出组标准(满足以下任一条件):(1)图像伪影较重,影响直肠癌病灶观察及测量;(2)病灶过小(小于3 mm),不便清楚勾画ROI;(3)直肠癌确诊,但行手术治疗后复查者。本研究经过大连医科大学附属第一医院医学伦理委员会批准(批准文号:PJ-KS-KY-2019-49),免除受试者知情同意。

       记录患者如下临床资料:年龄、性别、身高、体质量、是否有肠癌家族史、CEA (0~5 ng/mL为正常,大于5 ng/mL为异常)、CA19-9 (0~27 U/mL为正常,大于27 U/mL为异常)、T分期、N分期、有无远处转移、病灶位置。最终纳入直肠癌患者信息46例,A组15例[男7例,年龄(58.60±14.95)岁],B组31例[男21例,年龄(66.00±8.52)岁]。

1.2 检查设备及方法

       采用飞利浦公司生产的3.0 T核磁共振扫描仪(Ingenia CX,Philips,Holland)进行直肠磁共振扫描,使用16通道腹部线圈,扫描前4~6 h嘱患者禁食、水,保持肠道清洁,嘱咐受检者尽量采用胸式呼吸,防止腹式呼吸的运动对检查造成影响。受试者采取仰卧位,两侧髂前上棘连线与线圈中心重合,定位指示灯置于线圈中心。扫描方位包括横轴位、矢状位和冠状位。扫描序列包括APTw (APT扫描前先进行B1场预饱和扫描)、T2 mapping序列及T1WI、T2WI、DWI、DCE-MRI等常规MRI序列,扫描参数见表1。DCE-MRI对比剂采用钆对比剂(钆双胺,拜耳公司),每人剂量0.2 mL/kg,注射流速2.5 mL/s。

表1  各序列扫描参数
Tab. 1  Scanning parameters of each sequence

1.3 图像分析及数据测量

       在操作平台进行图像重建,获得APTw、T2 mapping重建图像,再将图像传至ISP (IntelliSpace Portall,Philips Healthcare)工作站,利用ISP软件重建APTw伪彩图,并生成APTw伪彩图和DWI的融合图像。图像由2名腹部影像诊断经验丰富的副主任医师在事先未知临床信息的情况下独立分析,不一致者经讨论达成统一。以T2WI、DWI和DCE-MRI图像相互参照,找到病灶实质的轴位最大层面,避开囊性、出血、坏死区,分别将三个面积约为50 mm2的圆形ROI手动放置在APTw-DWI融合图像和T2 mapping参数图像所对应的同一层面病灶实质上,测量其APTw值和T2值(图12),并取3个ROI所测值的平均值进行后续分析。

图1  男,61岁,直肠癌经XELOX化疗第3周期后。T2WI (A)、DWI (B)、T2 mapping图像(C)和APTw-DWI融合图像(D)分别显示化疗后的直肠癌病灶。T2WI可见病灶区域三个ROIs。ROIs的APT、T2值分别为0.6%、2.3%、0.6%和78.28 ms、80.53 ms、71.41 ms,平均值分别为1.17%和76.74 ms
图2  男性,65岁,直肠癌未经化疗。T2WI (A)、DWI (B)、T2 mapping图像(C)和APTw-DWI融合图像(D)分别显示未经化疗的直肠癌病灶。T2WI可见病灶区域三个ROIs。ROIs的APT、T2值分别为2.4%、4.7%、5.5%和78.52 ms、86.14 ms、80.94 ms,平均值分别为4.2%和81.87 ms
Fig. 1  Male, 61 years old, with rectal cancer after the third cycle of XELOX chemotherapy. T2WI (A), DWI (B), T2 mapping image (C) and APTw-DWI fusion image (D) showed the lesions of rectal cancer after chemotherapy respectively. Three ROIs could be seen in the focus area on T2WI. The APT and T2 values of ROIs are 0.6%, 2.3%, 0.6% and 78.28ms, 80.53ms, 71.41 ms, respectively, with an average of 1.17% and 76.74 ms, respectively.
Fig. 2  Male, 65 years old, rectal cancer without chemotherapy. T2WI (A), DWI (B), T2 mapping images (C) and APTw-DWI fusion images (D) showed rectal cancer lesions without chemotherapy respectively. Three ROIs could be seen in the focus area on T2WI. The APT and T2 values of ROIs are 2.4%, 4.7%, 5.5% and 78.52 ms, 86.14 ms, 80.94 ms, respectively, with an average of 4.2% and 81.87 ms, respectively.

1.4 统计学分析

       数据经由SPSS 25.0统计软件进行统计分析。使用卡方检验分析两组临床资料中的定性数据;使用独立样本t检验比较临床资料中的定量数据。采用组间相关系数(inter-class correlation coefficient,ICC)检验2名观察者所测得数据的一致性。ICC<0.4为一致性差,0.4~0.75为一致性一般,>0.75为一致性良好,若一致性良好,取两者平均值进行后续分析。采用Shapiro-Wilk检验分析数据的正态性,若P>0.05,表示服从正态分布,数据采用x¯±s表达;若P<0.05,表示服从偏态分布,数据采用M (QR)表达。若数据服从正态分布,采用独立样本t检验,否则采用Mann-Whitney U检验比较两组APTw、T2 mapping定量参数平均值的差异,P<0.05认为差异具有统计学意义。应用Logistic回归计算APTw-T2 mapping联合参数的预测值。分别评估两组APTw和T2值有差异的参数的ROC曲线,获得效能、敏感度和特异度。应用Delong检验比较APTw、T2 mapping及联合参数之间的效能差异,P<0.05认为差异具有统计学意义。

2 结果

2.1 临床一般资料

       A、B两组患者的临床一般资料及比较结果见表2。结果表明A组年龄小于B组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。余一般资料差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)

表2  A、B两组患者的一般临床资料
Tab. 2  General clinical data of patients in group A and B

2.2 A、B两组病灶基本影像学表现

       A、B两组病灶均表现为T1WI等低信号,T2WI可呈等或高信号,DWI呈明显高信号,动态增强见病灶早期明显强化,无法从影像表现上区分两组。

2.3 2名观察者测量结果一致性检验

       2名医师测量结果一致性见表3。ICC值均大于0.75,表示结果一致性良好,取两者平均值进行后续分析。

表3  2名医师测得两组平均APTw值和T2值
Tab. 3  The average APTw and T2 values measured by the two radiologists

2.4 APTw、T2 mapping定量值对两组的鉴别

       A组的APTw值为1.52%±0.56%,B组的APTw值为2.88% (0.77%)。A组的APTw值低于B组,差异具有统计学意义[Z=-4.735,P<0.05,95% CI (0,0.049)]。APTw区分两组病变的AUC值为0.934,敏感度、特异度和阈值分别为93.5%、93.3%和2.11%。

       A组的T2值为(72.67±8.56) ms,B组的T2值为86.31 (8.77) ms。A组的T2值低于B组,差异有统计学意义[Z=-4.604,P<0.05,95% CI (0,0.049)]。T2 mapping区分两组病变的AUC值0.923,敏感度、特异度和阈值分别为90.3%、86.7%和80.79 ms。

2.5 APTw联合T2 mapping定量值对两组的鉴别

       APTw和T2 mapping的联合参数预测值,直肠癌化疗组为0.86±0.19,非化疗组为0.07±0.19,化疗组高于非化疗组(P<0.05),AUC为0.981,敏感度为100%,特异度为96.8% (图3)。

图3  直肠癌化疗组与非化疗组的APTw值和T2值以及APTw联合T2值(APT-T2)的ROC曲线图。APTw和T2值联合诊断的敏感度和特异度分别为100%和96.8%,诊断效能提高(AUC=0.981)
Fig. 3  ROC curve of APWT and T2 values and APTw combined with T2 values (APT-T2) between the chemotherapy group and the non-chemotherapy group. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined diagnosis of APTw and T2 values were 100% and 96.8% respectively, and the diagnostic efficiency was improved (AUC=0.981).

2.6 Delong检验比较联合参数与各个参数之间的效能差异

       APTw与T2 mapping、APTw与联合参数、T2 mapping与联合参数之间的效能差异P值分别为0.86、0.21和0.14,差异均无统计学意义。

3 讨论

3.1 直肠癌化疗与未化疗的T2 mapping定量对比

       T2 mapping,即T2弛豫时间,它在不同回波时间采集多个T2加权图像,并将各种TE的信号拟合到指数信号衰减模型,从而生成T2的定量估计值[10]。它可以反映组织的水含量变化,从而分析病变[11]。T2 mapping常用于心脏成像,例如检测心肌炎[12],也有用于骨关节部位等的研究[13]

       本研究结果显示,直肠癌化疗组的T2值明显低于未化疗组,分析其原因可能是由于NCT可导致肿瘤组织纤维化,从而使T2值减低。Yamada等[14]采用3.0 T MRI的T2 mapping序列扫描大肠癌患者,发现其能够清晰分辨正常肠壁及病灶,区分纤维组织和肿瘤组织,其结果显示,与肿瘤相比,纤维组织的T2值明显减低,印证了本研究结果。相较于Yamada等[14]的试验,本研究中除了采用T2 mapping序列,还扫描了T2WI、DWI和DYNAMIC序列,并将这些图像做参照,更能准确判定及画取病灶。

3.2 直肠癌化疗与未化疗的APTw定量对比

       CEST作为一种新型的MRI对比机制,在分子成像领域引起了极大的关注。CEST通过对处于共振系统中的内源性或外源性对比剂的中间交换质子位点(如-NH,-OH,或与金属结合的水分子)施加饱和脉冲实现,所得到的饱和或部分饱和的自旋脉冲通过化学交换转移至周围自由水中,导致自由水的信号强度降低,从而被图像反映出来。Zhou等[15]开发了APTw成像技术作为内源性CEST成像技术。APTw成像的目的在于检测在MRI光谱中体内移动蛋白主链上的可交换酰胺质子。这些蛋白质可以借水信号在体内成像,从而在MR图像上表现出来,即通过MRI中的大量水信号间接获取内源性细胞蛋白信息(比如估计器官中蛋白质和肽的量),从而将分子MRI技术的范围扩展到蛋白水平[16]。之前的研究表明,APTw信号强度可用于神经胶质瘤[17]和肝细胞癌[7]的病理分级预测以及宫颈鳞癌的诊断和分级评估中[18]

       本研究结果显示,化疗后的直肠癌病灶APTw值较未化疗者低。分析原因之一可能是由于化疗导致细胞增殖减慢或停止,而之前Kumari等[19]对替莫唑胺耐药胶质母细胞瘤施以硝唑啉治疗,发现短期治疗后的病灶APT信号强度较未治疗者明显减低,并通过Ki-67染色发现肿瘤APT信号与细胞增殖呈正相关,因此,治疗后的肿瘤APTw值低于未治疗者。原因之二可能是由于肿瘤细胞具有很高的增殖活性,与正常组织相比,许多蛋白质都过表达,含有的蛋白质或多肽含量也较多,因此APTw值较高;而化疗可以减少肿瘤细胞及蛋白质的合成,因此化疗后的APTw值减低。Qamar等[20]对16例鼻咽癌患者放化疗前后分别进行APTw显像,发现对放化疗应答者的APT信号强度较不应答者显著减低。Nishie等[21]通过测量局部进展期直肠癌化疗后的病灶APTw信号强度发现化疗疗效较差组的APTw值明显高于高反应组(3.05%±1.61%与1.14%±1.13%),效能为0.87,敏感度与特异度分别为75%、100%。这与本试验的结果一致。

       本研究的局限性:(1)病例数较少,结果需要前瞻性大样本研究验证;(2)本研究为横断面研究,缺少同一患者化疗前后病灶的纵向对比研究;(3)ROI放置于病灶实质区域,未考虑囊性、出血、坏死区域对定量值的影响。笔者后期将进一步扩大样本量,收集同一患者治疗前后影像进行评估,同时对ROI放置进行更合理的规划。

3.3 结论

       化疗后肿瘤纤维化及蛋白质及多肽的合成受抑制,这使得T2 mapping和APTw能定量区分直肠癌XELOX化疗和未化疗的病灶,且具有良好的效能、敏感度和特异度,提示这两种技术具有评估直肠癌化疗疗效的潜能,可能作为非侵入性影像学手段定量预测直肠癌化疗疗效,成为直肠癌个体化治疗的重要指标,具有良好的临床应用前景,值得进一步探索。

1
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2021[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(1): 7-33. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21654.
2
中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会. 中国结直肠癌诊疗规范(2020年版)[J]. 中国实用外科杂志2020, 40(6): 601-625. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2020.06.01.
Hospital Authority of National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. Chinese Society of Oncology, Chinese Medical Association. Chinese protocol of diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer (2020 edition)[J]. Chin J Pract Surg, 2020, 40(6): 601-625. DOI: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2020.06.01.
3
Martens MH, Maas M, Heijnen LA, et al. Long-term outcome of an organ preservation program after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2016, 108(12): djw171. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djw171.
4
刘金玲, 林吉征, 苏晓, 等. 高分辨率MRI动态增强扫描在直肠癌术前TN分期及手术方式选取中的应用[J]. 磁共振成像, 2021, 12(1): 38-42. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.01.008.
Liu JL, Lin JZ, Su X, et al. Application of high resolution dynamic enhanced MR scan in TN staging and operation mode selection of rectal cancer before operation[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaing, 2021,12(1): 38-42. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.01.008.
5
van der Paardt MP, Zagers MB, Beets-Tan RG, et al. Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology2013, 269(1): 101-112. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122833.
6
张浩, 崔园园, 冯杰, 等. 氨基质子转移成像对脑胶质瘤分级及异柠檬酸脱氢酶、Ki-67、p53表达的诊断及预测价值[J]. 中国医学影像学杂志, 2020, 28(5): 327-332. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-5185.2020.05.002.
Zhang H, Cui YY, Feng J, et al. Diagnostic and predictive efficacy of amide proton transfer mri in tumor grading, isocitrate dehydrogenase status and the expression level of Ki-67 and p53 in gliomas[J]. Chin J Med Imaging, 2020, 28(5): 327-332. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-5185.2020.05.002.
7
Wu B, Jia F, Li X, al at. Comparative study of amide proton transfer imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion imaging for predicting histologic grade of hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Front Oncol, 2020, 10: 562049. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.562049.
8
Wang F, Zhang H, Wu C, et al. Quantitative T2 mapping accelerated by GRAPPATINI for evaluation of muscles in patients with myositis[J]. Br J Radiol, 2019, 92(1102): 20190109. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190109.
9
Hoffman DH, Ayoola A, Nickel D, et al. T1 mapping, T2 mapping and MR elastography of the liver for detection and staging of liver fibrosis[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2020, 45(3): 692-700. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-02382-9.
10
Foltz WD, Chopra S, Chung P, et al. Clinical prostate T2 quantification using magnetization-prepared spiral imaging. Magn Reson Med, 2010, 64(4): 1155-1161. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22492.
11
Ran J, Ji S, Morelli JN, et al. T2 mapping in dermatomyositis/polymyositis and correlation with clinical parameters. Clin Radiol, 2018, 73(12): 1057.e13-1057.e18. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.07.106.
12
牟俊, 王頔, 刘新峰, 等. 心脏磁共振T2-mapping技术在急性心肌炎中的应用价值[J]. 放射学实践, 2020, 35(11): 1424-1428. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2020.11.011.
Mou J, Wang D, Liu XF, et al. The application value of T2-mapping sequence of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging to monitor myocardial inflammation in acute myocarditis[J]. Radiol Practice, 2020, 35(11): 1424-1428. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2020.11.011.
13
Renner N, Kleyer A, Krönke G, et al. T2 mapping as a new method for quantitative assessment of cartilage damage in rheumatoid arthritis[J]. J Rheumatol, 2020, 47(6): 820-825. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.180728.
14
Yamada I, Yoshino N, Hikishima K, et al. Colorectal carcinoma: ex vivo evaluation using 3-T high-spatial-resolution quantitative T2 mapping and its correlation with histopathologic findings[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2017, 38: 174-181. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2016.12.028.
15
Zhou J, Payen JF, Wilson DA, et al. Using the amide proton signals of intracellular proteins and peptides to detect pH effects in MRI[J]. Nat Med, 2003, 9(8): 1085-1090. DOI: 10.1038/nm907.
16
van Zijl PCM, Zhou J, Mori N, et al. Mechanism of magnetization transfer during on-resonance water saturation. A new approach to detect mobile proteins, peptides, and lipids[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2003, 49(3): 440-449. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.10398.
17
Zou T, Yu H, Jiang C, et al. Differentiating the histologic grades of gliomas preoperatively using amide proton transfer-weighted (APTW) and intravoxel incoherent motion MRI[J]. NMR Biomed, 2018, 31(1): 10.1002/nbm.3850. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.3850.
18
侯孟岩, 孟楠, 王竞, 等. 酰胺质子转移成像与DWI诊断宫颈鳞癌并评估其分级的对比研究[J]. 放射学实践, 2021, 36(1): 98-102. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2021.01.019.
Hou MY, Meng N, Wang J, et al. A comparative study of amide proton transfer imaging and diffusion weighted imaging for assessing cervical squamous cell carcinoma and evaluating its histological grading[J]. Radiol Practice, 2021, 36(1): 98-102. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2021.01.019.
19
Kumari N, Thakur N, Cho HR, et al. Assessment of early therapeutic response to nitroxoline in temozolomide-resistant glioblastoma by amide proton transfer imaging: a preliminary comparative study with diffusion-weighted imaging[J]. Sci Rep, 2019, 9(1): 5585. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42088-y.
20
Qamar S, King AD, Ai QY, et al. Amide proton transfer MRI detects early changes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: providing a potential imaging marker for treatment response[J]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2019, 276(2): 505-512. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-018-5231-x.
21
Nishie A, Asayama Y, Ishigami K, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging to predict tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2019, 34(1): 140-146. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14315.

上一篇 肝内铁、脂沉积对ADC 值评估慢性乙型肝炎患者肝纤维化的影响
下一篇 度中心性的静息态功能磁共振成像探讨原发性痛经患者月经期痛经的中枢机制
  
诚聘英才 | 广告合作 | 免责声明 | 版权声明
联系电话:010-67113815
京ICP备19028836号-2