Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 7, 2016; 22(13): 3652-3662
Published online Apr 7, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i13.3652
Published online Apr 7, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i13.3652
Table 4 Comparison of tumor dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging pharmacokinetic parameters from 28 scanned patients using two models [Median (IQR)]
| ktrans (min-1) | PS (mL/mL ・min-1) | Fp (mL/mL ・min-1) | kep (min-1) | ve | vp | HPI | |
| Dual-Input Extended Tofts model | 0.29 ± 0.38 | - | - | 1.35 ± 1.42 | 0.51 ± 1.16 | 0.12 ± 0.21 | 0.66 ± 0.24 |
| Dual-Input Exchange model | - | 0.19 ± 0.36 | 1.07 ± 1.73 | 0.95 ± 1.60 | 1.22 ± 1.19 | 0.14 ± 0.17 | 0.63 ± 0.29 |
| Z/t value | NA | NA | NA | -0.638 | -2.869 | -0.568 | 0.4991 |
| P value | NA | NA | NA | 0.524 | 0.004 | 0.569 | 0.6221 |
- Citation: Yang JF, Zhao ZH, Zhang Y, Zhao L, Yang LM, Zhang MM, Wang BY, Wang T, Lu BC. Dual-input two-compartment pharmacokinetic model of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(13): 3652-3662
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i13/3652.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i13.3652