Perfusion MRI using dynamic-susceptibility contrast MRI: Quantification issues in patient studies

Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 75-85

  Calamante, Fernando ^a,b  

^a FLOREY INSTITUTE OF NEUROSCIENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

arterial input function; cerebral blood flow; contrast agent; deconvolution; perfusion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN BLOOD FLOW; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DYNAMIC SUSCEPTIBILITY CONTRAST MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PERFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CEREBROVASCULAR CIRCULATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PERFUSION;

EID: 79958717110     PISSN: 08993459     EISSN: 15361004     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e31821e53f5     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Calamante F, Thomas DL, Pell GS, et al. Measuring cerebral blood flow using magnetic resonance techniques. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1999;19:701-735. (Pubitemid 30159797)
2. PerkioJ, Aronen HJ, Kangasmai A, et al. Evaluation of four postprocessing methods for determination of cerebral blood volume and mean transit time by dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2002;47:973-981.
3. Paulson ES, Schmainda KM. Comparison of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhancedMRmethods: recommendations for measuring relative cerebral blood volume in brain tumors. Radiology. 2008;249:601-613.
4. Calamante F, Christensen S, Desmond PM, et al. The physiological significance of the time-to-maximum (Tmax) parameter in perfusion MRI. Stroke. 2010;41:1169-1174.
5. Koshimoto Y, Yamada H, Kimura H, et al. Quantitative analysis of cerebral microvascular hemodynamics with T2-weighted dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9:462-467. (Pubitemid 29180142)
6. Klarhofer M, Dilharreguy B, van Gelderen P, et al. A PRESTO-SENSE sequence with alternating partial-Fourier encoding for rapid susceptibility-weighted 3D MRI time series. Magn Reson Med. 2003;50:830-838. (Pubitemid 37187849)
7. Newbould RD, Skare ST, Jochimsen TH, et al. Perfusion mapping with multiecho multishot parallel imaging EPI. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58:70-81. (Pubitemid 47229919)
8. Rosen BR, Belliveau JW, Vevea JM, et al. Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med. 1990;14:249-265. (Pubitemid 20248610)
9. Weisskoff RM, Zuo CS, Boxerman JL, et al. Microscopic susceptibility variation and transverse relaxation. Theory and experiment. Magn Reson Med. 1994;31:601-610. (Pubitemid 24166815)
10. Weisskoff RM, Chesler D, Boxerman JL, et al. Pitfalls in MR measurement of tissue blood flow with intravascular tracers: which mean transit-time? Magn Reson Med. 1993;29:553-559.
11. Perthen JE, Calamante F, Gadian DG, et al. Is quantification of bolus tracking MRI reliable without deconvolution? Magn Reson Med. 2002;47:61-67. (Pubitemid 34019693)
12. Kstergaard L, Weisskoff RM, Chesler DA, et al. High resolution measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages. Part I. Mathematical approach and statistical analysis. Magn Reson Med. 1996;36:715-725. (Pubitemid 26376710)
13. Kstergaard L, Sorensen AG, Kwong KK, et al. High resolution measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages. Part II. Experimental comparison and preliminary results. Magn Reson Med. 1996;36:726-736. (Pubitemid 26376711)
14. Mlynash M, Eyngorn I, Bammer R, et al. Automated method for generating the arterial input function of perfusion-weighted MR imaging: validation in patients with stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26:1479-1486. (Pubitemid 43733450)
15. Carroll TJ, Rowley HA, Haughton VM. Automatic calculation of the arterial input function for cerebral perfusion imaging with MR imaging. Radiology. 2003;227:593-600. (Pubitemid 36514783)
16. Mouridsen K, Christensen S, Gyldensten L, et al. Automatic selection of arterial input function using cluster analysis. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55:524-531. (Pubitemid 43352550)
17. Rempp KA, Brix G, Wenz F, et al. Quantification of regional cerebral blood flow and volume with dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 1994;193:637-641. (Pubitemid 24366927)
18. Schreiber WG, Gu?kel F, Stritzke P, et al. Cerebral blood flow and cerebrovascular reserve capacity: estimation by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1998;18:1143-1156. (Pubitemid 28465362)
19. Andersen IK, Szymkowiak A, Rasmussen CE, et al. Perfusion quantification using Gaussian process deconvolution. Magn Reson Med. 2002;48:351-361. (Pubitemid 34809424)
20. Calamante F, Gadian DG, Connelly A. Quantification of bolus tracking MRI: improved characterization of the tissue residue function using Tikhonov regularization. Magn Reson Med. 2003;50:1237-1247. (Pubitemid 37494025)
21. Wu O, Kstergaard L, Weisskoff RM, et al. Tracer arrival timing-insensitive technique for estimating flow in MR perfusion-weighted imaging using singular value decomposition with a block-circulant deconvolution matrix. Magn Reson Med. 2003;50:164-174. (Pubitemid 36841872)
22. Vonken EPA, van Osch MJP, Baker CJG, et al. Measurement of cerebral perfusion with dual-echo multi-slice quantitative dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10: 109-117. (Pubitemid 29362423)
23. Willats L, Connelly A, Calamante F. Improved deconvolution of perfusion MRI data in the presence of bolus delay and dispersion. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56:146-156.
24. Willats L, Connelly A, Calamante F. Minimising the effects of bolus dispersion in bolus tracking MRI. NMR Biomed. 2008;21:1126-1137.
25. Mouridsen K, Friston K, Hjort N, et al. Bayesian estimation of cerebral perfusion using a physiological model of microvasculature. Neuroimage. 2006;33:570-579. (Pubitemid 44485544)
26. Straka M, Albers GW, Bammer R. Real-time diffusion-perfusion mismatch analysis in acute stroke. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32:1024-1037.
27. BjLrnerud A, Emblem KE. A fully automated method for quantitative cerebral hemodynamic analysis using DSC-MRI. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010;30:1066-1078.
28. Kim J, Leira EC, Callison RC, et al. Toward fully automated processing of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI for acute ischemic cerebral stroke. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2010;98:204-213.
29. Kstergaard L, Johannsen P, Poulsen PH, et al. Cerebral blood flow measurements by magnetic resonance imaging bolus tracking: comparison with [O-15] H2O positron emission tomography in humans. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1998;18:935-940.
30. Shin W, Horowitz S, Ragin A, et al. Quantitative cerebral perfusion using dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI: evaluation of reproducibility and age- and gender-dependence with fully automatic image postprocessing algorithm. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58:1232-1241. (Pubitemid 350234210)
31. Zaharchuk G, Straka M, Marks MP, et al. Combined arterial spin label and dynamic susceptibility contrast measurement of cerebral blood flow. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63:1548-1556.
32. Zaro-Weber O, Moeller-Hartmann W, Heiss WD, et al. A simple positron emission tomography-based calibration for perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance maps to optimize penumbral flow detection in acute stroke. Stroke. 2010;41:1939-1945.
33. Kiselev VG. On the theoretical basis of perfusion measurements by dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46:1113-1122. (Pubitemid 33104300)
34. van Osch MJP, Vonken EPA, Viergever MA, et al. Measuring the arterial input function with gradient echo sequences. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49:1067-1076. (Pubitemid 36627286)
35. Kjolby BF, Kstergaard L, Kiselev VG. Theoretical model of intravascular paramagnetic tracers effect on tissue relaxation. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56:187-197.
36. Wintermark M, Sesay M, Barbier E, et al. Comparative overview of brain perfusion imaging techniques. Stroke. 2005;36:e83-e99.
37. Pathak AP, Rand SD, Schmainda KM. The effect of brain tumor angiogenesis on the in vivo relationship between the gradient-echo relaxation rate change (R2*) and contrast agent (MION) dose. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;18:397-403. (Pubitemid 37187591)
38. Calamante F, Connelly A, van Osch MJP. Non-linear R2 effects in perfusion quantification using bolus-tracking MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61:486-492.
39. Zaharchuk G, Bammer R, Straka M, et al. Improving dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI measurement of quantitative cerebral blood flow using corrections for partial volume and nonlinear contrast relaxivity: a xenon computed tomographic comparative study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:743-752.
40. Akbudak E, Hsu RM, Li Y, et al. R*and V contrast agent perfusion effects in blood: quantitation and linearity assessment. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of ISMRM, Sydney, Australia, 1998; Abstract 1197.
41. Calamante F, Gadian DG, Connelly A. Delay and dispersion effects in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI: simulations using singular value decomposition. Magn Reson Med. 2000;44:466-473.
42. Kstergaard L, Chesler DA, Weisskoff RM, et al. Modeling cerebral blood flow and flow heterogeneity from magnetic resonance residue data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1999;19:690-699. (Pubitemid 30161222)
43. Calamante F, Yim PJ, Cebral JR. Estimation of bolus dispersion effects in perfusion MRI using image-based computational fluid dynamics. Neuroimage. 2003;19:341-353. (Pubitemid 39665685)
44. Calamante F. Bolus dispersion issues related to the quantification of perfusion MRI data. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22:718-722. (Pubitemid 41741236)
45. Calamante F, Willats L, Gadian DG, et al. Bolus delay and dispersion in perfusion MRI: implications for tissue predictor models in stroke. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55:1180-1185.
46. Calamante F, MLrup M, Hansen LK. Defining a local arterial input function for perfusion MRI using independent component analysis. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52:789-797. (Pubitemid 39314981)
47. Lorenz C, Benner T, Lopez CJ, et al. Effect of using local arterial input functions on cerebral blood flow estimation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24:57-65.
48. Gruer R, BjLrnara B, Moen G, et al. Magnetic resonance brain perfusion imaging with voxel-specific arterial input functions. Magn Reson Med. 2006;23:273-284. (Pubitemid 43364052)
49. Lee JJ, Bretthorst GL, Derdeyn CP, et al. Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI with localized arterial input functions. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63:1305-1314.
50. Lorenz C, Benner T, Chen PJ, et al. Automated perfusion-weighted MRI using localized arterial input functions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24:1133-1139. (Pubitemid 44658252)
51. Christensen S, Mouridsen K, Wu O, et al. Comparison of 10 perfusion MRI parameters in 97 subY6-hour stroke patients using voxel-based receiver operating characteristics analysis. Stroke. 2009;40:2055-2061.
52. van Osch MJP, van der Grond J, Bakker CJG. Partial volume effects on arterial input functions: shape and amplitude distortions and their correction. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22:704-709. (Pubitemid 41741234)
53. Bleeker EJW, van Osch MJP, Connelly A, et al. New criterion to aid manual and automatic selection of the arterial input function in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2011;65:448-456.
54. Duhamel G, Schlaug G, Alsop DC. Measurement of arterial input functions for dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging using echoplanar images: comparison of physical simulations with in vivo results. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55:514-523. (Pubitemid 43352549)
55. Bleeker EJ, van Buchem MA, van Osch MJ. Optimal location for arterial input function measurements near the middle cerebral artery in first-pass perfusion MRI. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2009;29:840-852.
56. Murase K, Shinohara M, Yamazaki Y. Accuracy of deconvolution analysis based on singular value decomposition for quantification of cerebral blood flow using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2001;46:3147-3159. (Pubitemid 34568064)
57. Neumann-Haefelin T, Wittsack H-J, Fink GR, et al. Diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI. Influence of severe carotid artery stenosis on the DWI/PWI mismatch in acute stroke. Stroke. 2000;31:1311-1317. (Pubitemid 30351251)
58. Calamante F, Ganesan V, Kirkham FJ, et al. MR perfusion imaging in moyamoya syndrome. Potential implications for clinical evaluation of occlusive cerebrovascular disease. Stroke. 2001;32:2810-2816. (Pubitemid 33134470)
59. Christensen S, Calamante F, Hjort N, et al. Inferring origin of vascular supply from tracer arrival timing patterns using bolus tracking MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27:1371-1381. (Pubitemid 351770692)
60. Vonken EPA, van Osch MJP, Baker CJG, et al. Simultaneous qualitative cerebral perfusion and Gd-DTPA extravasation measurements with dual-echo dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2000;43:820-827. (Pubitemid 30387602)
61. Calamante F, Vonken EPA, van Osch MJP. Contrast agent concentration measurements affecting quantification of bolus-tracking perfusion MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58:544-553. (Pubitemid 350154965)
62. Quarles CC, Ward BD, Schmainda KM. Improving the reliability of obtaining tumor hemodynamic parameters in the presence of contrast agent extravasation. Magn Reson Med. 2005;53:1307-1316. (Pubitemid 40734650)
63. Kosior RK, Kosior JC, Frayne R. Improved dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC)YMR perfusion estimates by motion correction. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:1167-1172. (Pubitemid 47548184)
64. Loufti I, Frackowiak RS, Myers MJ, et al. Regional brain hematocrit in stroke by single photon emission computer tomography imaging. Am J Physiol Imaging. 1987;2:10-16. (Pubitemid 17063260)
65. Calamante F, Gadian DG, Connelly A. Quantification of perfusion using bolus tracking MRI in stroke. Assumptions, limitations, and potential implications for clinical use. Stroke. 2002;33:1146-1151. (Pubitemid 34293606)
66. Levin JM, Kaufman MJ, Ross MJ, et al. Sequential dynamic susceptibility contrast MR experiments in human brain: residual contrast agent effect, steady state, and hemodynamic perturbation. Magn Reson Med. 1995;34:655-663.
67. Levin JM, Wald LL, Kaufman MJ, et al. T1 effects in sequential dynamic susceptibility contrast experiments. J Magn Reson. 1998;130:292-295. (Pubitemid 128451240)
68. Shellock FG, Spinazzi A. MRI safety update 2008: Part I, MRI contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1129-1139.
69. Grandin C, Bol A, Smith A, et al. Absolute CBF and CBV measurements by MRI bolus tracking before and after acetazolamide challenge: repeatability and comparison with PET in humans. Neuroimage. 2005;26:525-535. (Pubitemid 40719830)
70. Calamante F, Connelly A. Perfusion precision in bolus-tracking MRI: estimation using the wild-Bootstrap method. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61:696-704.