Diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging using a phase-derived vascular input function in the preoperative grading of gliomas

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1539-1545

  Nguyen, Thanh Binh ^a   Cron, G O ^a   Mercier, J F ^a   Foottit, C ^a   Torres, C H ^a   Chakraborty, S ^a   Woulfe, J ^a   Jansen, G H ^a   Caudrelier, J M ^a   Sinclair, J ^a   Hogan, M J ^a   Thornhill, R E ^a   Cameron, I G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

ARTICLE; ASTROCYTOMA; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GLIOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; OLIGODENDROGLIOMA; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

AREA UNDER CURVE; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; GADOLINIUM DTPA; GLIOMA; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84866412393     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: 1936959X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3012     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Law M, Yang S, Wang H, et al. Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1989-98 (Pubitemid 37444849)
2. Verheul HM, Voest EE, Schlingermann RO. Are tumours angiogenesis- dependent? J Pathol 2004;202:5-13 (Pubitemid 38072840)
3. 15O positron emission tomography. Eur J Radiol 2009;70:465-74
4. Brix G, Griebel J, Kiessling F, et al. Tracer kinetic modelling of tumour angiogenesis based on dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MRI measurements. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37(suppl 1):S30-51
5. Cron GO, Kelcz F, Santyr GE. Improvement in breast lesion characterization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using pharmacokinetic modeling and bookend T(1) measurements. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:1066-70 (Pubitemid 38580622)
6. Patankar TF, Haroon HA, Mills SJ, et al. Is volume transfer coefficient (Ktrans) related to histologic grade in human gliomas? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2455-65
7. Donahue KM, Weiskoff RM, Burstein D, et al. Diffusion and exchange as they influence contrast enhancement. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:102-10 (Pubitemid 28365644)
8. Foottit C, Cron GO, Hogan MJ et aI. Determination of the venous output function from MR signal phase: feasibility for quantitative DCE-MRI in human brain. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:772-81
9. Cron GO, Foottit C, Yankeelov TE, et al. Arterial input functions determined from MR signal magnitude and phase for quantitative DCE-MRI in the human pelvis. Magn Reson Med 2011;66:498-504
10. Weisskoff RM, Zuo CS, Boxerman JL, et al. Microscopic susceptibility variation and transverse relaxation: theory and experiment. Magn Reson Med 1994;31:601-10 (Pubitemid 24166815)
11. Roberts HC, Roberts TPL, Brasch RC, et al. Quantitative measurement of microvascular permeability in human brain tumors achieved using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histologic grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:891-99 (Pubitemid 30262836)
12. Calamante F, Vonken E, van Osch MJP. Contrast agent concentration measurements affecting quantification of bolus-tracking perfusion MRI. Magn Reson Med 2007;58:544-53 (Pubitemid 350154965)
13. Mangla R, Kolar B, Zhu T, et al. Percentage signal recovery derived from MR dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging is useful to differentiate common enhancing malignant lesions of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1004-10
14. Hu LS, Baxter LC, Pinnaduwage DS, et al. Optimized preload leakage-correction methods to improve the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in posttreatment gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:40-48
15. Kim J, Seethamraju RT, Suh JY, et al. R1 and R2* changes according to Gd concentration: a potential limiting factor in converting MR signal intensity to Gd concentration. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; May 6-13, 2011
16. Sourbron S, Ingrisch M, Siefert A, et al. Quantification of cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume and blood-brain-barrier leakage with DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009;62:205-17
17. Kim YR, Rebro KJ, Schmainda KM. Water exchange and inflow affect the accuracy of T1-GRE blood volume measurements: implications for the evaluation of tumor angiogenesis. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:1110-20 (Pubitemid 34587402)
18. de Bruin PW, Versluis MJ, Yusuf E, et al. Arterial input functions in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: magnitude versus phase. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; May 6-13, 2011
19. Song HK, Xue Y, Yu J, et al. Comparison of the standard gadolinium concentration and signal difference methodologies for computation of perfusion parameters in DCE-MRI at various SNRs. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; May 6-13, 2011
20. Ott RJ, Brada M, Flower MA, et al. Measurements of blood-brain barrier permeability in patients undergoing radiotherapy and chemotherapy for primary cerebral lymphoma. Eur J Cancer 1991;27:1356-61
21. Tofts PS. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:91-101 (Pubitemid 28365643)
22. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223-32 (Pubitemid 29463104)