CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsMRI in cancer diagnosisMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

ROCKETSHIP: a flexible and modular software tool for the planning, processing and analysis of dynamic MRI studies

Open access
Barnes, Samuel R., Ng, Thomas S. C., Santa-Maria, Naomi, Montagne, Axel, Zlokovic, Berislav V., Jacobs, Russell E.·2015·BMC Medical Imaging
DOI 10.1186/s12880-015-0062-3PMC PMC4466867
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is a promising technique to characterize pathology and evaluate treatment response. However, analysis of DCE-MRI data is complex and benefits from concurrent analysis of multiple kinetic models and parameters. Few software tools are currently available that specifically focuses on DCE-MRI analysis with multiple kinetic models. Here, we developed ROCKETSHIP, an open-source, flexible and modular software for DCE-MRI analysis. ROCKETSHIP incorporates analyses with multiple kinetic models, including data-driven nested model analysis. RESULTS: ROCKETSHIP was implemented using the MATLAB programming language. Robustness of the software to provide reliable fits using multiple kinetic models is demonstrated using simulated data. Simulations also demonstrate the utility of the data-driven nested model analysis. Applicability of ROCKETSHIP for both preclinical and clinical studies is shown using DCE-MRI studies of the human brain and a murine tumor model. CONCLUSION: A DCE-MRI software suite was implemented and tested using simulations. Its applicability to both preclinical and clinical datasets is shown. ROCKETSHIP was designed to be easily accessible for the beginner, but flexible enough for changes or additions to be made by the advanced user as well. The availability of a flexible analysis tool will aid future studies using DCE-MRI. A public release of ROCKETSHIP is available at https://github.com/petmri/ROCKETSHIP .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12880-015-0062-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patlak analysis allows detection of subtle changes in BBB permeability.

    “These studies used Patlak analysis (46, 47, 466), which allows detection of subtle changes in BBB permeability (46, 248, 418, 421).”

    From Blood-Brain Barrier: From Physiology to Disease and Back (2019) · cites this paper as [47]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. [2]Cuenod C Fournier L Balvay D Guinebretiere J-M Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment Abdom Imaging 2006 31 2 188 93 10.1007/s00261-005-0386-5 16447089 · DOI
  2. [3]Hylton N Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker J Clin Oncol 2006 24 20 3293 8 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.8080 16829653 · DOI
  3. [4]O’Connor JP Jackson A Parker GJ Jayson GC DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents Br J Cancer 2007 96 2 189 95 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603515 17211479 PMC2359994 · DOI
  4. [5]Frias AE, Schabel MC, Roberts VHJ, Tudorica A, Grigsby PL, Oh KY, et al. Using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to quantitatively characterize maternal vascular organization in the primate placenta. Magn Reson Med. 2014;1570–1578. PMC4487918 24753177
  5. [7]Sourbron S Ingrisch M Siefert A Reiser M Herrmann K Quantification of cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, and blood–brain-barrier leakage with DCE-MRI Magn Reson Med 2009 62 1 205 17 10.1002/mrm.22005 19449435 · DOI
  6. [8]Strijkers GJ Mulder WJ van Tilborg GA Nicolay K MRI Contrast Agents: Current Status and Future Perspectives Anticancer Agents Med Chem 2007 7 3 291 305 10.2174/187152007780618135 17504156 · DOI
  7. [9]Di Giovanni P Azlan CA Ahearn TS Semple SI Gilbert FJ Redpath TW The accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurement in DCE-MRI of the breast at 3 T Phys Med Biol 2010 55 1 121 10.1088/0031-9155/55/1/008 20009182 · DOI
  8. [10]Chassidim Y Veksler R Lublinsky S Pell GS Friedman A Shelef I Quantitative imaging assessment of blood-brain barrier permeability in humans Fluids Barriers CNS 2013 10 1 9 10.1186/2045-8118-10-9 23388348 PMC3570379 · DOI
  9. [11]Chih‐Feng C Ling‐Wei H Chun‐Chung L Chen‐Chang L Hsu‐Huei W Yuan‐Hsiung T In vivo correlation between semi‐quantitative hemodynamic parameters and Ktrans derived from DCE‐MRI of brain tumors Int J Imag Syst Tech 2012 22 2 132 6 10.1002/ima.22013 · DOI
  10. [12]Sourbron SP Buckley DL Classic models for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI NMR Biomed 2013 26 8 1004 27 10.1002/nbm.2940 23674304 · DOI
  11. [13]Jackson A Li K-L Zhu X Semi-Quantitative Parameter Analysis of DCE-MRI Revisited: Monte-Carlo Simulation, Clinical Comparisons, and Clinical Validation of Measurement Errors in Patients with Type 2 Neurofibromatosis PLoS One 2014 9 3 10.1371/journal.pone.0090300 24594707 PMC3942428 · DOI
  12. [14]Koh TS Bisdas S Koh DM Thng CH Fundamentals of tracer kinetics for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI J Magn Reson Imaging 2011 34 6 1262 76 10.1002/jmri.22795 21972053 · DOI
  13. [15]Parker GJM Roberts C Macdonald A Buonaccorsi GA Cheung S Buckley DL Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI Magn Reson Med 2006 56 5 993 1000 10.1002/mrm.21066 17036301 · DOI
  14. [16]Heye T Boll DT Reiner CS Bashir MR Dale BM Merkle EM Impact of precontrast T10 relaxation times on dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI pharmacokinetic parameters: T10 mapping versus a fixed T10 reference value J Magn Reson Imaging 2013 39 5 1136 45 10.1002/jmri.24262 25006630 · DOI
  15. [17]Srikanchana R Thomasson D Choyke P Dwyer A A comparison of Pharmacokinetic Models of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI Computer-Based Medical Systems, 2004 CBMS 2004 Proceedings 17th IEEE Symposium on: 24-25 June 2004 2004 2004 361 6
  16. [18]Cramer SP Larsson HB Accurate determination of blood-brain barrier permeability using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI: a simulation and in vivo study on healthy subjects and multiple sclerosis patients J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2014 34 10 1655 65 10.1038/jcbfm.2014.126 25074746 PMC4269724 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [19]Zloković BV Lipovac MN Begley DJ Davson H Rakić L Transport of Leucine-Enkephalin Across the Blood-Brain Barrier in the Perfused Guinea Pig Brain J Neurochem 1987 49 1 310 5 10.1111/j.1471-4159.1987.tb03431.x 3585338 · DOI
  18. [20]Zlokovic BV Begley DJ Chain-Eliash DG Blood-brain barrier permeability to leucine-enkephalin, d-Alanine2-d-leucine5-enkephalin and their N-terminal amino acid (tyrosine) Brain Res 1985 336 1 125 32 10.1016/0006-8993(85)90423-8 3891014 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [21]Zlokovic B Cerebrovascular Permeability to Peptides: Manipulations of Transport Systems at the Blood-Brain Barrier Pharm Res 1995 12 10 1395 406 10.1023/A:1016254514167 8584471 · DOI
  20. [22]Larsson HB Courivaud F Rostrup E Hansen AE Measurement of brain perfusion, blood volume, and blood-brain barrier permeability, using dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI at 3 tesla Magn Reson Med 2009 62 5 1270 81 10.1002/mrm.22136 19780145 · DOI
  21. [23]Ewing JR Bagher-Ebadian H Model selection in measures of vascular parameters using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: experimental and clinical applications NMR Biomed 2013 26 8 1028 41 10.1002/nbm.2996 23881857 PMC3752406 · DOI
  22. [24]Ewing JR Brown SL Lu M Panda S Ding G Knight RA Model selection in magnetic resonance imaging measurements of vascular permeability: Gadomer in a 9L model of rat cerebral tumor J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2006 26 3 310 20 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600189 16079791 · DOI
  23. [25]Stefanovski D Moate PJ Boston RC WinSAAM: a windows-based compartmental modeling system Metabolism 2003 52 9 1153 66 10.1016/S0026-0495(03)00144-6 14506622 · DOI
  24. [26]Barrett PHR Bell BM Cobelli C Golde H Schumitzky A Vicini P SAAM II: Simulation, analysis, and modeling software for tracer and pharmacokinetic studies Metabolism 1998 47 4 484 92 10.1016/S0026-0495(98)90064-6 9550550 · DOI
  25. [27]Heye T Davenport MS Horvath JJ Feuerlein S Breault SR Bashir MR Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part I. Perfusion characteristics in the female pelvis by using multiple computer-aided diagnosis perfusion analysis solutions Radiology 2013 266 3 801 11 10.1148/radiol.12120278 23220897 · DOI
  26. [28]Smith DS Li X Arlinghaus LR Yankeelov TE Welch EB DCEMRI.jl: A fast, validated, open source toolkit for dynamic contrast enhanced MRI analysis PeerJ Pre Prints 2014 2 e670v671 PMC4411523 25922795
  27. [29]Cetin O An analysis tool to calculate permeability based on the Patlak method J Med Syst 2012 36 3 1317 26 10.1007/s10916-010-9592-y 20848166 · DOI
  28. [30]Barboriak DP, MacFall JR, Padua AO, York GE, Viglianti BL, Dewhirst MW. Standardized software for calculation of Ktrans and vp from dynamic T1-weighted MR images. In: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Workshop on MR in Drug Development: From Discovery to Clinical Therapeutic Trials: 2004; McLean, VA; 2004.
  29. [31]Whitcher B Schmid VJ Quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for oncology in R J Stat Softw 2011 44 5 1 29 10.18637/jss.v044.i05 · DOI
  30. [32]Ferl GZ DATforDCEMRI: an R package for deconvolution analysis and visualization of DCE-MRI data J Stat Softw 2011 44 3 1 18 10.18637/jss.v044.i03 · DOI
  31. [33]Ortuno JE Ledesma-Carbayo MJ Simoes RV Candiota AP Arus C Santos A DCE@urLAB: a dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI pharmacokinetic analysis tool for preclinical data BMC Bioinformatics 2013 14 316 10.1186/1471-2105-14-316 24180558 PMC4228420 · DOI
  32. [34]Zollner FG Weisser G Reich M Kaiser S Schoenberg SO Sourbron SP UMMPerfusion: an open source software tool towards quantitative MRI perfusion analysis in clinical routine J Digit Imaging 2013 26 2 344 52 10.1007/s10278-012-9510-6 22832894 PMC3597952 · DOI
  33. [35]Balvay D Frouin F Calmon G Bessoud B Kahn E Siauve N New criteria for assessing fit quality in dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI for perfusion and permeability imaging Magn Reson Med 2005 54 4 868 77 10.1002/mrm.20650 16155897 · DOI
  34. [36]Khalifa F Soliman A El-Baz A El-Ghar MA El-Diasty T Gimel’farb G Models and methods for analyzing DCE-MRI: A review Med Phys 2014 41 12 124301 10.1118/1.4898202 25471985 · DOI
  35. [37]Bagher-Ebadian H Jain R Nejad-Davarani SP Mikkelsen T Lu M Jiang Q Model Selection for DCE-T1 Studies in Glioblastoma Magn Reson Med 2012 68 1 241 51 10.1002/mrm.23211 22127934 PMC3292667 · DOI
  36. [38]Huang W Li X Chen Y Li X Chang MC Oborski MJ Variations of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of breast cancer therapy response: a multicenter data analysis challenge Transl Oncol 2014 7 1 153 66 10.1593/tlo.13838 24772219 PMC3998693 · DOI
  37. [39]Kim H Folks KD Guo L Stockard CR Fineberg NS Grizzle WE DCE-MRI detects early vascular response in breast tumor xenografts following anti-DR5 therapy Mol Imaging Biol 2011 13 1 94 103 10.1007/s11307-010-0320-2 20383593 PMC4138021 · DOI
  38. [40]Yankeelov TE DeBusk LM Billheimer DD Luci JJ Lin PC Price RR Repeatability of a reference region model for analysis of murine DCE-MRI data at 7T J Magn Reson Imaging 2006 24 5 1140 7 10.1002/jmri.20729 17024660 · DOI
  39. [41]Loveless ME Lawson D Collins M Nadella MV Reimer C Huszar D Comparisons of the efficacy of a Jak1/2 inhibitor (AZD1480) with a VEGF signaling inhibitor (cediranib) and sham treatments in mouse tumors using DCE-MRI, DW-MRI, and histology Neoplasia 2012 14 1 54 64 10.1593/neo.111478 22355274 PMC3281942 · DOI
  40. [42]Anderson KB Conder JA Discussion of Multicyclic Hubbert Modeling as a Method for Forecasting Future Petroleum Production Energy Fuels 2011 25 4 1578 84 10.1021/ef1012648 · DOI
  41. [43]Glatting G Kletting P Reske SN Hohl K Ring C Choosing the optimal fit function: comparison of the Akaike information criterion and the F-test Med Phys 2007 34 11 4285 92 10.1118/1.2794176 18072493 · DOI
  42. [44]Motulsky H, Christopoulos A. Fitting models to biological data using linear and nonlinear regression: a practical guide to curve fitting: Oxford University Press; 2004.
  43. [45]Lin LI A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility Biometrics 1989 45 1 255 68 10.2307/2532051 2720055 · DOI · Paper page
  44. [46]Li K-L Wilmes LJ Henry RG Pallavicini MG Park JW Hu-Lowe DD Heterogeneity in the angiogenic response of a BT474 human breast cancer to a novel vascular endothelial growth factor-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor: Assessment by voxel analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI J Magn Reson Imaging 2005 22 4 511 9 10.1002/jmri.20387 16161072 · DOI
  45. [47]Henderson E Rutt BK Lee TY Temporal sampling requirements for the tracer kinetics modeling of breast disease Magn Reson Imaging 1998 16 9 1057 73 10.1016/S0730-725X(98)00130-1 9839990 · DOI
  46. [48]Larsson C Kleppesto M Rasmussen I Jr Salo R Vardal J Brandal P Sampling requirements in DCE-MRI based analysis of high grade gliomas: simulations and clinical results J Magn Reson Imaging 2013 37 4 818 29 10.1002/jmri.23866 23086710 · DOI
  47. [49]Ng TS Wert D Sohi H Procissi D Colcher D Raubitschek AA Serial diffusion MRI to monitor and model treatment response of the targeted nanotherapy CRLX101 Clin Cancer Res 2013 19 9 2518 27 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2738 23532891 PMC3644008 · DOI
  48. [50]McGrath DM Bradley DP Tessier JL Lacey T Taylor CJ Parker GJ Comparison of model‐based arterial input functions for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in tumor bearing rats Magn Reson Med 2009 61 5 1173 84 10.1002/mrm.21959 19253360 · DOI
  49. [51]Huang W Li X Morris EA Tudorica LA Seshan VE Rooney WD The magnetic resonance shutter speed discriminates vascular properties of malignant and benign breast tumors in vivo Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008 105 46 17943 8 10.1073/pnas.0711226105 19004780 PMC2582583 · DOI
  50. [52]Paudyal R Poptani H Cai K Zhou R Glickson JD Impact of transvascular and cellular–interstitial water exchange on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging estimates of blood to tissue transfer constant and blood plasma volume J Magn Reson Imaging 2013 37 2 435 44 10.1002/jmri.23837 23197427 · DOI
  51. [53]Li X Rooney WD Springer CS Jr A unified magnetic resonance imaging pharmacokinetic theory: intravascular and extracellular contrast reagents Magn Reson Med 2005 54 6 1351 9 10.1002/mrm.20684 16247739 · DOI
  52. [54]Zhou R Pickup S Yankeelov TE Springer CS Glickson JD Simultaneous measurement of arterial input function and tumor pharmacokinetics in mice by dynamic contrast enhanced imaging: Effects of transcytolemmal water exchange Magn Reson Med 2004 52 2 248 57 10.1002/mrm.20143 15282806 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barnes, S. R., Ng, T. S. C., Santa-Maria, N., Montagne, A., Zlokovic, B. V., & Jacobs, R. E.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Ng, Thomas S. C.
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Imaging
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-06-16
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
19-19
ISSN
1471-2342 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12880-015-0062-3
PMC
PMC4466867
OpenAlex
W1485255591
Cited by
101
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • California Institute of Technology
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH-R01, NRSA T32 GM07616, R37 NS34467, R37AG23084, EB000993)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG023084, R01AG039452, R37AG023084, P50AG005142, R37AG23084, RF1AG039452)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA107399)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM-07616, T32GM007616)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R37NS034467, R01NS034467, R37NS34467)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (EB000993, R01EB000194, R01EB000993, R01 EB00194)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, kinetic model, pharmacokinetic parameter estimation, open source software, MATLAB, mouse tumor model, human brain imaging, treatment response assessment
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Software Design, User-Computer Interface, Reproducibility of Results, Information Storage and Retrieval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review