Comparison of Three Different MR Perfusion Techniques and MR Spectroscopy for Multiparametric Assessment in Distinguishing Recurrent High-Grade Gliomas from Stable Disease

Academic Radiology

Volumn 20, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 1557-1565

  Seeger, Achim ^a   Braun, Christian ^a   Skardelly, Marco ^a   Paulsen, Frank ^a   Schittenhelm, Jens ^a   Ernemann, Ulrike ^a   Bisdas, Sotirios ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Arterial spin labeling; Cerebral blood flow; Cerebral blood volume; Dynamic contrast enhanced imaging; Dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced imaging; Glioma; K(trans); Spectroscopy

Indexed keywords

CHOLINE; CREATINE; GADOBUTROL; N ACETYLASPARTIC ACID; SPECTRIS; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; ARTERIAL SPIN LABELING; ARTICLE; BRAIN BLOOD FLOW; BRAIN BLOOD VOLUME; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED T1 WEIGHTED IMAGING; DYNAMIC SUSCEPTIBILITY CONTRAST ENHANCED PERFUSION IMAGING; ECHO PLANAR IMAGING; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLIOMA; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MULTIVOXEL NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENT DISEASE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUSCEPTIBILITY WEIGHTED IMAGING; TUMOR RECURRENCE;

ARTERIAL SPIN LABELING; CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW; CEREBRAL BLOOD VOLUME; DYNAMIC CONTRAST-ENHANCED IMAGING; DYNAMIC SUSCEPTIBILITY CONTRAST-ENHANCED IMAGING; GLIOMA; K(TRANS); SPECTROSCOPY;

BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; BRAIN; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; COHORT STUDIES; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLIOMA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPIN LABELS;

EID: 84887175009     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alexiou G.A., Tsiouris S., Kyritsis A.P., et al. Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis: accuracy of current imaging modalities. J Neuro-oncol 2009, 95:1-11.
2. Brandes A.A., Tosoni A., Spagnolli F., et al. Disease progression or pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment: pitfalls in neurooncology. Neuro-oncology 2008, 10:361-367.
3. Mullins M.E., Barest G.D., Schaefer P.W., et al. Radiation necrosis versus glioma recurrence: conventional MR imaging clues to diagnosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005, 26:1967-1972.
4. Al Sayyari A., Buckley R., McHenery C., et al. Distinguishing recurrent primary brain tumor from radiation injury: a preliminary study using a susceptibility-weighted MR imaging-guided apparent diffusion coefficient analysis strategy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010, 31:1049-1054.
5. Barajas R.F., Chang J.S., Segal M.R., et al. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009, 253:486-496.
6. Perry A., Schmidt R.E. Cancer therapy-associated CNS neuropathology: an update and review of the literature. Acta Neuropathol 2006, 111:197-212.
7. Shah A.H., Snelling B., Bregy A., et al. Discriminating radiation necrosis from tumor progression in gliomas: a systematic review what is the best imaging modality?. J Neuro-oncol 2013, 112:141-152.
8. Stupp R., Mason W.P., van den Bent M.J., et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:987-996.
9. Buxton R.B., Frank L.R., Wong E.C., et al. A general kinetic model for quantitative perfusion imaging with arterial spin labeling. Magn Reson Med 1998, 40:383-396.
10. Bisdas S., Naegele T., Ritz R., et al. Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acad Radiol 2011, 18:575-583.
11. Zwick S., Brix G., Tofts P.S., et al. Simulation-based comparison of two approaches frequently used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 2010, 20:432-442.
12. Verma N., Cowperthwaite M.C., Burnett M.G., et al. Differentiating tumor recurrence from treatment necrosis: a review of neuro-oncologic imaging strategies. Neuro-oncology 2013, 15:515-534.
13. Tofts P.S., Kermode A.G. 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. Matsusue E., Fink J.R., Rockhill J.K., et al. Distinction between glioma progression and post-radiation change by combined physiologic MR imaging. Neuroradiology 2010, 52:297-306.
15. Jain R., Narang J., Sundgren P.M., et al. Treatment induced necrosis versus recurrent/progressing brain tumor: going beyond the boundaries of conventional morphologic imaging. J Neuro-oncol 2010, 100:17-29.
16. Petcharunpaisan S., Ramalho J., Castillo M. Arterial spin labeling in neuroimaging. World J Radiol 2010, 2:384-398.
17. Jarnum H., Steffensen E.G., Knutsson L., et al. Perfusion MRI of brain tumours: a comparative study of pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Neuroradiology 2010, 52:307-317.
18. Wolf R.L., Detre J.A. Clinical neuroimaging using arterial spin-labeled perfusion magnetic resonance imaging. Neurotherapeutics 2007, 4:346-359.
19. Weber M.A., Gunther M., Lichy M.P., et al. Comparison of arterial spin-labeling techniques and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI in perfusion imaging of normal brain tissue. Investig Radiol 2003, 38:712-718.
20. Ozsunar Y., Mullins M.E., Kwong K., et al. Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis? A pilot comparison of arterial spin-labeled, dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced MRI, and FDG-PET imaging. Acad Radiol 2010, 17:282-290.
21. Narang J., Jain R., Arbab A.S., et al. Differentiating treatment-induced necrosis from recurrent/progressive brain tumor using nonmodel-based semiquantitative indices derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR perfusion. Neuro-oncology 2011, 13:1037-1046.
22. Tofts P.S., Brix G., Buckley D.L., et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn ResonI Imaging 1999, 10:223-232.
23. Fatterpekar G.M., Galheigo D., Narayana A., et al. Treatment-related change versus tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas: a diagnostic conundrum-use of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) perfusion MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012, 198:19-26.
24. Hu L.S., Baxter L.C., Smith K.A., et al. Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009, 30:552-558.
25. Sugahara T., Korogi Y., Tomiguchi S., et al. Posttherapeutic intraaxial brain tumor: the value of perfusion-sensitive contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating tumor recurrence from nonneoplastic contrast-enhancing tissue. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000, 21:901-909.
26. Gasparetto E.L., Pawlak M.A., Patel S.H., et al. Posttreatment recurrence of malignant brain neoplasm: accuracy of relative cerebral blood volume fraction in discriminating low from high malignant histologic volume fraction. Radiology 2009, 250:887-896.
27. Hu L.S., Eschbacher J.M., Heiserman J.E., et al. Reevaluating the imaging definition of tumor progression: perfusion MRI quantifies recurrent glioblastoma tumor fraction, pseudoprogression, and radiation necrosis to predict survival. Neuro-oncology 2012, 14:919-930.
28. Paulson E.S., Schmainda K.M. Comparison of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR methods: recommendations for measuring relative cerebral blood volume in brain tumors. Radiology 2008, 249:601-613.
29. Weybright P., Sundgren P.C., Maly P., et al. Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using MR spectroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005, 185:1471-1476.
30. Zeng Q.S., Li C.F., Zhang K., et al. Multivoxel 3D proton MR spectroscopy in the distinction of recurrent glioma from radiation injury. J Neuro-oncol 2007, 84:63-69.
31. Elias A.E., Carlos R.C., Smith E.A., et al. MR spectroscopy using normalized and non-normalized metabolite ratios for differentiating recurrent brain tumor from radiation injury. Acad Radiol 2011, 18:1101-1108.
32. Smith E.A., Carlos R.C., Junck L.R., et al. Developing a clinical decision model: MR spectroscopy to differentiate between recurrent tumor and radiation change in patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192:W45-W52.
33. Rabinov J.D., Lee P.L., Barker F.G., et al. Invivo 3-T MR spectroscopy in the distinction of recurrent glioma versus radiation effects: initial experience. Radiology 2002, 225:871-879.
34. Tedeschi G., Lundbom N., Raman R., et al. Increased choline signal coinciding with malignant degeneration of cerebral gliomas: a serial proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging study. J Neurosurg 1997, 87:516-524.
35. Rock J.P., Scarpace L., Hearshen D., et al. Associations among magneticresonance spectroscopy, apparent diffusion coefficients, and image-guided histopathology with special attention to radiation necrosis. Neurosurgery 2004, 54:1111-1117.
36. Rock J.P., Hearshen D., Scarpace L., et al. Correlations between magnetic resonance spectroscopy and image-guided histopathology, with special attention to radiation necrosis. Neurosurgery 2002, 51:912-920.
37. Lima E.C., Otaduy M.C., Tsunemi M., et al. The effect of paramagnetic contrast in choline peak in patients with glioblastoma multiforme might not be significant. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013, 34:80-84.