RESUMEN
Many researchers have established the utility of the dynamic contrast enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in the differential diagnosis in the head and neck region, especially in the salivary gland tumors. The subjective assessment of the pattern of the time-intensity curve (TIC) or the simple quantification of the TIC, such as the time to peak enhancement (T(peak)) and the wash-out ratio (WR), is commonly used. Although the semiquantitative evaluations described above have been widely applied, they do not provide information on the underlying pharmacokinetic analysis in tissue. The quantification of DCE-MRI is preferable; therefore, many compartment model analyses have been proposed. The Toft and Kermode (TK) model is one of the most popular compartment models, which provide information about the influx forward volume transfer constant from plasma into the extravascular-extracellular space (EES) and the fractional volume of EES per unit volume of tissue is used in many clinical studies. This paper will introduce the method of pharmacokinetic analysis and also describe the clinical application of this technique in the head and neck region.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether a pharmacokinetic analysis is useful for monitoring the response of oral cancer to chemoradiotherapy (CRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were included. They underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) before and after CRT. The DCE-MRI data were analyzed using a Tofts and Kermode (TK) model. The histological evaluation of the effects of CRT was performed according to Ohboshi and Shimosato's classification. RESULTS: None of the pre-CRT parameters were significantly different between the responders and nonresponders. The post-CRT volume of the extravascular extracellular space (EES) per unit volume of tissue (v(e) ) of responders (0.397 ± 0.080) was higher than that of nonresponders (0.281 ± 0.076) (P = 0.01). The change of the v(e) between the pre- and post-CRT of the responders (0.154 ± 0.093) was larger than that of the nonresponders (0.033 ± 0.073) (P = 0.001). Therefore, the increase in the v(e) strongly suggested a good tumor response to CRT, which reflected an increase of the EES secondary to the destruction of the cancer nest. The changes in the volume transfer constant (K(trans) ) were significantly different between the responders and nonresponders (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Both the increase of the v(e) and the elevation of permeability (K(trans) ) were indicative of a good tumor response to CRT. The pharmacokinetic analysis had potential for monitoring the histopathological response to CRT.