Bone metastases: Evaluation of acuity of lesions using dynamic gadolinium-chelate enhancement, preliminary results

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 120-127

  Northam, Meredith ^a   De Campos, Rafael O P ^a   Ramalho, Miguel ^a   Heredia, Vasco ^a   Gonzalez, Carlos A ^a   Azevedo, Rafael M ^a   Semelka, Richard C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Acuity; acute lesions; arterial phase enhancement; bone metastases; dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging

Indexed keywords

GADOBENATE DIMEGLUMINE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BILE DUCT CARCINOMA; BONE BIOPSY; BONE LESION; BONE METASTASIS; BRAIN METASTASIS; BREAST CANCER; CANCER OF UNKNOWN PRIMARY SITE; CANCER STAGING; CARCINOID; CHEMODECTOMA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DYNAMIC GADOLINIUM CHELATE ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEIOMYOSARCOMA; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; LIVER METASTASIS; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MALE; MELANOMA; NEUROENDOCRINE TUMOR; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RHABDOMYOSARCOMA;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BONE AND BONES; BONE NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HEPATIC ARTERY; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; NEOPLASMS; RADIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 79959584180     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22495     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ,. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59: 225-249.
2. Hamaoka T, Madewell JE, Podoloff DA, Hortobagyi GN, Ueno NT,. Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2942-2953. (Pubitemid 41079914)
3. Rajarubendra N, Lawrentschuk N,. Imaging of bone metastases. In:, Dominique H, editor. Bone cancer. San Diego: Academic Press; 2010. p 269-282.
4. O'sullivan JM, Cook GJ,. A review of the efficacy of bone scanning in prostate and breast cancer. Q J Nucl Med 2002; 46: 152-159.
5. Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW,. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology 2007; 242: 360-385. (Pubitemid 46150968)
6. Ghanem N, Uhl M, Brink I, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI in comparison to scintigraphy, PET, MS-CT and PET/CT for the detection of metastases of bone. Eur J Radiol 2005; 55: 41-55. (Pubitemid 40798487)
7. Liu T, Cheng T, Xu W, Yan WL, Liu J, Yang HL,. A meta-analysis of (18)FDG-PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Skeletal Radiol 2010 [Epub ahead of print].
8. Heusner T, Golitz P, Hamami M, et al. "One-stop-shop" staging: should we prefer FDG-PET/CT or MRI for the detection of bone metastases? Eur J Radiol 2009 [Epub ahead of print].
9. Kumar J, Seith A, Kumar A, et al. Whole-body MR imaging with the use of parallel imaging for detection of skeletal metastases in pediatric patients with small-cell neoplasms: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET/CT. Pediatr Radiol 2008; 38: 953-962.
10. Takenaka D, Ohno Y, Matsumoto K, et al. Detection of bone metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients: comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), whole-body MR imaging without and with DWI, whole-body FDG-PET/CT, and bone scintigraphy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 298-308.
11. Kattapuram SV, Khurana JS, Scott JA, el-Khoury GY,. Negative scintigraphy with positive magnetic resonance imaging in bone metastases. Skeletal Radiol 1990; 19: 113-116. (Pubitemid 20057251)
12. Taoka T, Mayr NA, Lee HJ, et al. Factors influencing visualization of vertebral metastases on MR imaging versus bone scintigraphy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 1525-1530. (Pubitemid 32510275)
13. Schmidt GP, Schoenberg SO, Schmid R, et al. Screening for bone metastases: whole-body MRI using a 32-channel system versus dual-modality PET-CT. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 939-949. (Pubitemid 46766875)
14. Huang B, Law MW, Khong PL,. Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology 2009; 251: 166-174.
15. Chawla SC, Federman N, Zhang D, et al. Estimated cumulative radiation dose from PET/CT in children with malignancies: a 5-year retrospective review. Pediatr Radiol 2010; 40: 681-686.
16. Jeswani T, Padhani AR,. Imaging tumour angiogenesis. Cancer Imaging 2005; 5: 131-138.
17. Padhani AR, Leach MO,. Antivascular cancer treatments: functional assessments by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 2005; 30: 324-341. (Pubitemid 40898066)
18. Padhani AR, Miles KA,. Multiparametric imaging of tumor response to therapy. Radiology 2010; 256: 348-364.
19. Leach MO, Brindle KM, Evelhoch JL, et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer 2005; 92: 1599-1610. (Pubitemid 40756468)
20. Bauerle T, Semmler W,. Imaging response to systemic therapy for bone metastases. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 2495-2507.
21. Reddick WE, Taylor JS, Fletcher BD,. Dynamic MR imaging (DEMRI) of microcirculation in bone sarcoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 277-285. (Pubitemid 29463110)
22. van der Woude HJ, Bloem JL, Verstraete KL, Taminiau AH, Nooy MA, Hogendoorn PC,. Osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of dynamic MR imaging in detecting viable tumor before surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165: 593-598.
23. Bajpai J, Gamanagatti S, Sharma MC, et al. Noninvasive imaging surrogate of angiogenesis in osteosarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010; 54: 526-531.
24. Moehler TM, Hawighorst H, Neben K, et al. Bone marrow microcirculation analysis in multiple myeloma by contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cancer 2001; 93: 862-868. (Pubitemid 32756756)
25. Nosas-Garcia S, Moehler T, Wasser K, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing the disease activity of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with histology and clinical markers. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: 154-162. (Pubitemid 40885141)
26. Lin C, Luciani A, Belhadj K, et al. Multiple myeloma treatment response assessment with whole-body dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010; 254: 521-531.
27. Chen WT, Shih TT, Chen RC, et al. Blood perfusion of vertebral lesions evaluated with gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MRI: in comparison with compression fracture and metastasis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 15: 308-314. (Pubitemid 34195127)
28. Montemurro F, Russo F, Martincich L, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in monitoring bone metastases in breast cancer patients receiving bisphosphonates and endocrine therapy. Acta Radiol 2004; 45: 71-74.
29. Tokuda O, Hayashi N, Taguchi K, Matsunaga N,. Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging of diseased vertebrae: analysis of three parameters and the distribution of the time-intensity curve patterns. Skeletal Radiol 2005; 34: 632-638. (Pubitemid 41440005)
30. D'Agostino F, Dell'Aia P, Quattrocchi CC, et al. Differentiation of normal and neoplastic bone tissue in dynamic gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: validation of a semiautomated technique. Radiol Med 2010; 115: 804-814.
31. Bauerle T, Merz M, Komljenovic D, Zwick S, Semmler W,. Drug-induced vessel remodeling in bone metastases as assessed by dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and vessel size imaging: a longitudinal in vivo study. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16: 3215-3225.
32. Yuh WT, Mayr NA, Jarjoura D, et al. Predicting control of primary tumor and survival by DCE MRI during early therapy in cervical cancer. Invest Radiol 2009; 44: 343-350.
33. George ML, Dzik-Jurasz AS, Padhani AR, et al. Non-invasive methods of assessing angiogenesis and their value in predicting response to treatment in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1628-1636. (Pubitemid 33124241)
34. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 2006; 238: 42-53. (Pubitemid 43010579)
35. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999; 211: 101-110. (Pubitemid 29161739)
36. Padhani AR, Ah-See ML, Makris A,. MRI in the detection and management of breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2005; 5: 239-252. (Pubitemid 40558038)
37. Macura KJ, Ouwerkerk R, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA,. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics 2006; 26: 1719-1734.
38. Cronin CG, Cashell T, Mhuircheartaigh JN, et al. Bone biopsy of new suspicious bone lesions in patients with primary carcinoma: prevalence and probability of an alternative diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: W407-W410.