Perfusion MRI: The five most frequently asked technical questions

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 200, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 24-34

  Essig, Marco ^a   Shiroishi, Mark S ^b   Nguyen, Thanh Binh ^c   Saake, Marc ^a   Provenzale, James M ^d,e   Enterline, David ^d   Anzalone, Nicoletta ^f   Dor̈fler, Arnd ^a   Rovira, Àlex ^g   Wintermark, Max ^h   Law, Meng ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^g UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^h UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

CNS imaging; Contrast agents; Gadobutrol; Perfusion MRI

Indexed keywords

GADOBENATE DIMEGLUMINE; GADOBUTROL; GADODIAMIDE; GADOLINIUM; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE; GADOTERATE MEGLUMINE; GADOTERIDOL; GADOVERSETAMIDE; IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ANAPHYLAXIS; ARTERIAL SPIN LABELING; BRAIN BLOOD FLOW; BRAIN BLOOD VOLUME; BRAIN PERFUSION; BRAIN TUMOR; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST INDUCED NEPHROPATHY; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; DRUG SAFETY; DYSGEUSIA; GLIOMA; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING SOFTWARE; INJECTION SITE PAIN; INJECTION SITE REACTION; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; NAUSEA; NEPHROGENIC SYSTEMIC FIBROSIS; NEUROIMAGING; PERFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPIN LABELING; STANDARDIZATION; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT; URTICARIA;

BRAIN; BRAIN DISEASES; CONTRAST MEDIA; GADOLINIUM; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, INTRAVENOUS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS;

EID: 84871899838     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9543     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Essig M, Lodemann KP, Le-Huu M, Brüning R, Kirchin M, Reith W. Intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadobutrol for cerebral magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 1.5 T. Invest Radiol 2006; 41:256-263 (Pubitemid 44406186)
2. Essig M, Anzalone N, Combs SE, et al. MR imaging of neoplastic central nervous system lesions: review and recommendations for current practice. AJNR 2012; 33:803-817
3. Lacerda S, Law M. Magnetic resonance perfusion and permeability imaging in brain tumors. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2009; 19:527-557
4. Shiroishi MS, Habibi M, Rajderkar D, et al. Perfusion and permeability MR imaging of gliomas. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2011; 10:59-71
5. Giesel FL, Mehndiratta A, Risse F, et al. Intraindividual comparison between gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobutrol for magnetic resonance perfusion in normal brain and intracranial tumors at 3 Tesla. Acta Radiol 2009; 50:521-530
6. Sorensen AG. Perfusion MR imaging: moving forward. Radiology 2008; 249:416-417
7. Villringer A, Rosen BR, Belliveau JW, et al. Dynamic imaging with lanthanide chelates in normal brain: contrast due to magnetic susceptibility effects. Magn Reson Med 1988; 6:164-174 (Pubitemid 18066056)
8. Østergaard L. Principles of cerebral perfusion imaging by bolus tracking. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22:710-717 (Pubitemid 41741235)
9. Cha S, Knopp EA, Johnson G, Wetzel SG, Litt AW, Zagzag D. Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2002; 223:11-29 (Pubitemid 34258186)
10. Cha S. Perfusion MR imaging of brain tumors. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 15:279-289
11. Provenzale JM, Mukundan S, Barboriak DP. Diffusion-weighted and perfusion MR imaging for brain tumor characterization and assessment of treatment response. Radiology 2006; 239:632-649 (Pubitemid 43830599)
12. Brix G, Semmler W, Port R, Schad LR, Layer G, Lorenz WJ. Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991; 15:621-628
13. Tofts PS, Kermode AG. Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 1991; 17:357-367
14. Paldino MJ, Barboriak DP. Fundamentals of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2009; 17:277-289
15. 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; 10:223-232 (Pubitemid 29463104)
16. Miller JC, Pien HH, Sahani D, Sorensen AG, Thrall JH. Imaging angiogenesis: applications and potential for drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:172-187 (Pubitemid 40277367)
17. Jackson A, Jayson GC, Li KL, et al. Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in newly presenting glioma. Br J Radiol 2003; 76:153-162 (Pubitemid 36553239)
18. Edelman RR, Siewert B, Adamis M, Gaa J, Laub G, Wielopolski P. Signal targeting with alternating radiofrequency (STAR) sequences: application to MR angiography. Magn Reson Med 1994; 31:233-238 (Pubitemid 24044095)
19. Kim HS, Kim SY. A prospective study on the added value of pulsed arterial spin-labeling and apparent diffusion coefficients in the grading of gliomas. AJNR 2007; 28:1693-1699 (Pubitemid 47598142)
20. Kwong KK, Chesler DA, Weisskoff RM, et al. MR perfusion studies with T1-weighted echo planar imaging. Magn Reson Med 1995; 34:878-887
21. Petersen ET, Zimine I, Ho YC, Golay X. Non-invasive measurement of perfusion: a critical review of arterial spin labelling techniques. Br J Radiol 2006; 79:688-701 (Pubitemid 44283159)
22. Wolff SD, Balaban RS. Magnetization transfer contrast (MTC) and tissue water proton relaxation in vivo. Magn Reson Med 1989; 10:135-144 (Pubitemid 19107973)
23. Henkelman RM, Huang X, Xiang QS, Stanisz GJ, Swanson SD, Bronskill MJ. Quantitative interpretation of magnetization transfer. Magn Reson Med 1993; 29:759-766 (Pubitemid 23182857)
24. Golay X, Hendrikse J, Lim TC. Perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 15:10-27 (Pubitemid 38437542)
25. Wang J, Alsop DC, Li L, et al. Comparison of quantitative perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling at 1.5 and 4.0 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2002; 48:242-254 (Pubitemid 34809412)
26. Thompson G, Mills SJ, Stivaros SM, Jackson A. Imaging of brain tumors: perfusion/permeability. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2010; 20:337-353
27. Wu WC, Jiang SF, Yang SC, Lien SH. Pseudocontinuous arterial spin labeling perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: a normative study of reproducibility in the human brain. Neuroimage 2011; 56:1244-1250
28. Kim T, Kim SG. Quantification of cerebral arterial blood volume and cerebral blood flow using MRI with modulation of tissue and vessel (MOTIVE) signals. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54:333-342 (Pubitemid 41033550)
29. Kim T, Kim SG. Quantitative MRI of cerebral arterial blood volume. Open Neuroimag J 2011; 5:136-145
30. Petersen ET, Lim T, Golay X. Model-free arterial spin labeling quantification approach for perfusion MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006; 55:219-232 (Pubitemid 43238088)
31. Thomas DL, Lythgoe MF, Calamante F, Gadian DG, Ordidge RJ. Simultaneous noninvasive measurement of CBF and CBV using double-echo FAIR (DEFAIR). Magn Reson Med 2001; 45:853-863 (Pubitemid 32402028)
32. Wang J, Alsop DC, Song HK, et al. Arterial transit time imaging with flow encoding arterial spin tagging (FEAST). Magn Reson Med 2003; 50:599-607 (Pubitemid 37082085)
33. Warmuth C, Gunther M, Zimmer C. Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003; 228:523-532 (Pubitemid 36910097)
34. Golay X, Guenther M. Arterial spin labelling: final steps to make it a clinical reality. MAGMA 2012; 25:79-82
35. Wolf RL, Detre JA. Clinical neuroimaging using arterial spin-labeled perfusion magnetic resonance imaging. Neurotherapeutics 2007; 4:346-359 (Pubitemid 46962404)
36. van Westen D, Petersen ET, Wirestam R, et al. Correlation between arterial blood volume obtained by arterial spin labelling and cerebral blood volume in intracranial tumours. MAGMA 2011; 24:211-223
37. Grobner T. Gadolinium: a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21:1104-1108
38. Wolf RL, Wang J, Wang S, et al. Grading of CNS neoplasms using continuous arterial spin labeled perfusion MR imaging at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22:475-482 (Pubitemid 41416406)
39. Wang J, Fernandez-Seara MA, Wang S, St. Lawrence KS. When perfusion meets diffusion: in vivo measurement of water permeability in human brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2007; 27:839-849 (Pubitemid 46474624)
40. Haase A. Snapshot FLASH MRI: applications to T1, T2, and chemical-shift imaging. Magn Reson Med 1990; 13:77-89 (Pubitemid 20084545)
41. Buckley D, Parker G. Measuring contrast agent concentration in T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. In: Jackson A, Buckley D, Parker G, eds. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2005:69-79
42. Cron GO, Santyr G, Kelcz F. Accurate and rapid quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging using spoiled gradient-recalled echoes and bookend T(1) measurements. Magn Reson Med 1999; 42:746-753 (Pubitemid 29468305)
43. 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; 51:1066-1070 (Pubitemid 38580622)
44. Nguyen TB, Cron GO, Mercier JF, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging using a phase-derived vascular input function in the preoperative grading of gliomas. AJNR 2012; 33:1539-1545
45. Jackson A. Analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. Br J Radiol 2004; 77(spec no 2):S154-S166 (Pubitemid 40277715)
46. Claussen C, Laniado M, Schorner W, et al. Gadolinium-DTPA in MR imaging of glioblastomas and intracranial metastases. AJNR 1985; 6:669-674 (Pubitemid 15014459)
47. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005; 40:715-724 (Pubitemid 41546838)
48. Lövblad KO, Anzalone N, Dorfler A, et al. MR imaging in multiple sclerosis: review and recommendations for current practice. AJNR 2010; 31: 983-989
49. Tombach B, Benner T, Reimer P, et al. Do highly concentrated gadolinium chelates improve MR brain perfusion imaging? Intraindividually controlled randomized crossover concentration comparison study of 0.5 versus 1.0 mol/L gadobutrol. Radiology 2003; 226:880-888 (Pubitemid 36259167)
50. Talagala SL, Ye FQ, Ledden PJ, Chesnick S. Whole-brain 3D perfusion MRI at 3.0 T using CASL with a separate labeling coil. Magn Reson Med 2004; 52:131-140 (Pubitemid 39295265)
51. Wang Z, Wang J, Connick TJ, Wetmore GS, Detre JA. Continuous ASL (CASL) perfusion MRI with an array coil and parallel imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54:732-737 (Pubitemid 41233771)
52. Niendorf HP, Haustein J, Cornelius I, Alhassan A, Clauss W. Safety of gadolinium-DTPA: extended clinical experience. Magn Reson Med 1991; 22:222-228
53. Murphy KJ, Brunberg JA, Cohan RH. Adverse reactions to gadolinium contrast media: a review of 36 cases. AJR 1996; 167:847-849 (Pubitemid 26322229)
54. Li A, Wong CS, Wong MK, Lee CM, Au Yeung MC. Acute adverse reactions to magnetic resonance contrast media: gadolinium chelates. Br J Radiol 2006; 79:368-371 (Pubitemid 43676338)
55. Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH, Strouse PJ, Jan SC. Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing IV contrast media in children and adults. AJR 2007; 189:1533-1538 (Pubitemid 350174833)
56. Abujudeh HH, Kosaraju VK, Kaewlai R. Acute adverse reactions to gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobenate dimeglumine: experience with 32,659 injections. AJR 2010; 194:430-434
57. Prince MR, Zhang H, Zou Z, Staron RB, Brill PW. Incidence of immediate gadolinium contrast media reactions. AJR 2011; 196:402; [web]W138-W143
58. Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H, Hütter J, Weinmann HJ. Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 degrees C. Invest Radiol 2008; 43:817-828
59. European Medicines Agency Website. European Medicines Agency makes recommendations to minimise risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis with gadolinium containing contrast agents. www.ema.europa. eu/ema/index.jsp?curl= pages/news-and-events/news/2009/11/news-detail-000408.jsp&mid= WC0b01ac058004d5c1. Accessed June 2012
60. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Website. FDA news release. New warnings required on use of gadolinium-based contrast agents: enhanced screening recommended to detect kidney dysfunction. www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/ PressAnnouncements/ucm225286.htm. Accessed June 2012
61. Lee SK. Diffusion tensor and perfusion imaging of brain tumors in high-field MR imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2012; 22:123-134 [ix]
62. Lövblad KO, Haller S, Pereira VM. Stroke: high-field magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2012; 22:191-205 [x]
63. Prabhakaran V, Nair VA, Austin BP, et al. Current status and future perspectives of magnetic resonance high-field imaging: a summary. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2012; 22:373-397 [xii]
64. Han S, Paulsen JL, Zhu G, et al. Temporal/spatial resolution improvement of in vivo DCE-MRI with compressed sensing-optimized FLASH. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30:741-752
65. Attenberger UI, Ingrisch M, Dietrich O, et al. Time-resolved 3D pulmonary perfusion MRI: comparison of different k-space acquisition strategies at 1.5 and 3 T. Invest Radiol 2009; 44:525-531
66. Le Y, Kroeker R, Kipfer HD, Lin C. Development and evaluation of TWIST Dixon for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI with improved acquisition efficiency and fat suppression. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 36:483-491
67. 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)
68. Fernández-Seara MA, Wang Z, Wang J, et al. Continuous arterial spin labeling perfusion measurements using single shot 3D GRASE at 3 T. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54:1241-1247 (Pubitemid 41567204)
69. Fernández-Seara MA, Wang J, Wang Z, et al. Imaging mesial temporal lobe activation during scene encoding: comparison of fMRI using BOLD and arterial spin labeling. Hum Brain Mapp 2007; 28:1391-1400 (Pubitemid 350234190)
70. Ye FQ, Frank JA, Weinberger DR, McLaughlin AC. Noise reduction in 3D perfusion imaging by attenuating the static signal in arterial spin tagging (ASSIST). Magn Reson Med 2000; 44:92-100 (Pubitemid 30439843)
71. Yongbi MN, Fera F, Yang Y, Frank JA, Duyn JH. Pulsed arterial spin labeling: comparison of multisection baseline and functional MR imaging perfusion signal at 1.5 and 3.0 T: initial results in six subjects. Radiology 2002; 222:569-575 (Pubitemid 34106137)
72. 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 2010; 31:40-48
73. Acute Stroke Imaging Standardization Group-Japan Website. asist.umin.jp/index-e.htm. Accessed September 20, 2012
74. Stroke Imaging Repository Consortium Website. stir.ninds.nih.gov. Accessed September 20, 2012
75. Radiological Society of North America Website. RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. www.rsna.org/QIBA-.aspx. Accessed September 20, 2012
76. National Cancer Institute Website. Quantitative Imaging Network. imaging.cancer.gov/informatics/qin. Accessed September 20, 2012
77. University of Erlangen Website. Standardization of Acquisition and Post-Processing Study. www.neuroradiologie.uk-erlangen.de/e1846/e777/e780/index- ger.html). Accessed September 20, 2012