Perfusion imaging in renal diseases

Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging

Volumn 94, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 1313-1322

  Grenier, N ^a   Cornelis, F ^a   Le Bras, Y ^a   Rigou, G ^a   Boutault, J R ^a   Bouzgarrou, M ^a  

^a HÔPITAL PELLEGRIN   (France)

Author keywords

Kidney; Perfusion; Renal artery stenosis; Renal obstruction; Renal tumors

Indexed keywords

CHROMIUM 51; GADOLINIUM; IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM; TECHNETIUM 99M;

ANTIANGIOGENIC THERAPY; ARTICLE; BLOOD VOLUME; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECHOGRAPHY; FLOW RATE; FOLLOW UP; GLOMERULUS FILTRATION; HUMAN; KIDNEY ARTERY STENOSIS; KIDNEY BLOOD FLOW; KIDNEY DISEASE; KIDNEY FUNCTION; KIDNEY PERFUSION; KIDNEY TUMOR; MICROBUBBLE; NEPHROTOXICITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; SCINTIGRAPHY; URINARY TRACT OBSTRUCTION; VASCULAR DISEASE;

KIDNEY; PERFUSION; RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS; RENAL OBSTRUCTION; RENAL TUMORS;

CONTRAST MEDIA; HUMANS; KIDNEY; KIDNEY DISEASES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PERFUSION IMAGING; REGIONAL BLOOD FLOW; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84895067037     PISSN: None     EISSN: 22115684     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2013.08.018     Document Type: Short Survey

References (29)

1. Correas JM, Bridal L, Lesavre A, Mejean A, Claudon M, Helenon O. Ultrasound contrast agents: properties, princi-ples of action, tolerance, and artifacts. Eur Radiol 2001;11: 1316-28.
2. Lucidarme O, Correas JM, Bridal SL, Berger G. Quantification ofultrasound contrast agent response: comparison of continuouswave Doppler and power Doppler to backscattered radiofre-quency data. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001;27: 1379-86. (Pubitemid 34048351)
3. Lucidarme O, Franchi-Abella S, Correas JM, Bridal SL, Kurtisovski E, Berger G. Blood flow quantificationwith contrast-enhanced US: "entrance in the sec-tion" phenomenon-phantom and rabbit study. Radiology2003;228: 473-9. (Pubitemid 36910090)
4. Dietrich CF, Averkiou MA, Correas JM, Lassau N, Leen E, Piscaglia F. An EFSUMB introduction into dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumourperfusion. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2012;33: 344-51.
5. Daghini E, Juillard L, Haas JA, Krier JD, Romero JC, Lerman LO.Comparison of mathematic models for assessment of glomeru-lar filtration rate with electron-beam CT in pigs. Radiology2007;242: 417-24. (Pubitemid 46150969)
6. Lemoine S, Papillard M, Belloi A, Rognant N, Fouque D, Laville M, et al. Renal perfusion: noninvasive measurementwith multidetector CT versus fluorescent microspheres in a pigmodel. Radiology 2011;260: 414-20.
7. Attenberger UI, Morelli JN, Schoenberg SO, Michaely HJ.Assessment of the kidneys: magnetic resonance angiography, perfusion and diffusion. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2011;13:70.
8. Bokacheva L, Rusinek H, Zhang JL, Lee VS. Assessment of renalfunction with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. MagnReson Imaging Clin N Am 2008;16(viii): 597-611.
9. Schoenberg SO, Bock M, Kallinowski F, Just A. Correlation ofhemodynamic impact and morphologic degree of renal arterystenosis in a canine model. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000;11: 2190-8.
10. Schoenberg SO, Knopp MV, Bock M, Prince MR, Allenberg JR.Combined morphologic and functional assessment of renalartery stenosis using gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonanceimaging [editorial]. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13: 2738-42. (Pubitemid 28479514)
11. Schoenberg SO, Knopp MV, Londy F, Krishnan S, Zuna I, Lang N, et al. Morphologic and functional magnetic resonance imagingof renal artery stenosis: a multireader tricenter study. J AmSoc Nephrol 2002;13: 158-69. (Pubitemid 34042023)
12. Michaely HJ, Kramer H, Oesingmann N, Lodemann KP, Miserock K, Reiser MF, et al. Intraindividual comparison ofMR-renal perfusion imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Invest Radiol2007;42: 406-11. (Pubitemid 46788740)
13. Michaely HJ, Kramer H, Oesingmann N, Lodemann KP, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. Semiquantitative assessment of first-pass renal perfusion at 1.5 T: comparison of 2D saturationrecovery sequences with and without parallel imaging. AJR2007;188: 919-26. (Pubitemid 46496920)
14. Michaely HJ, Schoenberg SO, Oesingmann N, Ittrich C, Buhlig C, Friedrich D, et al. Renal artery stenosis: functional assessmentwith dynamic MR perfusion measurements-feasibility study.Radiology 2006;238: 586-96. (Pubitemid 43134371)
15. Rusinek H, Lee VS, Johnson G. Optimal dose of Gd-DTPA indynamic MR studies. Magn Reson Med 2001;46: 312-6. (Pubitemid 32703277)
16. Attenberger UI, Sourbron SP, Schoenberg SO, Morelli J, Leiner T, Schoeppler GM, et al. Comprehensive MR evaluationof renal disease: added clinical value of quantified renal per-fusion values over single MR angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging2010;31: 125-33.
17. Dujardin M, Sourbron S, Luypaert R, Verbeelen D, Stadnik T.Quantification of renal perfusion and function on a voxel-by-voxel basis: a feasibility study. Magn Reson Med 2005;54: 841-9. (Pubitemid 41457055)
18. Dujardin M, Luypaert R, Vandenbroucke F, Van der Niepen P, Sourbron S, Verbeelen D, et al. Combined T1-based perfusionMRI and MR angiography in kidney: first experience in normalsand pathology. Eur J Radiol 2009;69: 542-9.
19. de Senneville BD, Mendichovszky IA, Roujol S, Gordon I, Moonen C, Grenier N. Improvement of MRI-functional mea-surement with automatic movement correction in nativeand transplanted kidneys. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28: 970-8.
20. Rohrschneider WK, Hoffend J, Becker K, Clorius JH, Darge K, Kooijman H, et al. Combined static-dynamic MR urography forthe simultaneous evaluation of morphology and function in uri-nary tract obstruction I. Evaluation of the normal status in ananimal model. Pediatr Radiol 2000;30: 511-22. (Pubitemid 30609567)
21. Patlak CS, Blasberg RG, Fenstermacher JD. Graphical evalu-ation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-timeuptake data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1983;3: 1-7. (Pubitemid 13129630)
22. Prigent A. Monitoring renal function and limitations of renalfunction tests. Semin Nucl Med 2008;38: 32-46. (Pubitemid 350256715)
23. Schoenberg SO, Knopp MV, Bock M, Kallinowski F, Just A, Essig M, et al. Renal artery stenosis: grading of hemodynamicchanges with cine phase-contrast MR blood flow measure-ments. Radiology 1997;203: 45-53. (Pubitemid 27142706)
24. Schoenberg SO, Rieger JR, Michaely HJ, Rupprecht H, Samtleben W, Reiser MF. Functional magnetic resonanceimaging in renal artery stenosis. Abdom Imaging 2006;31: 200-12.
25. Claudon M, Durand E, Grenier N et al. Evaluation of dynamiccontrast- enhanced magnetic resonance urography for the splitrenal function measurement in chronic urinary obstruction.Radiology [in press].
26. Lassau N, Chapotot L, Benatsou B, Vilgrain V, Kind M, Lacroix J, et al. Standardization of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultra-sound for the evaluation of antiangiogenic therapies: theFrench multicenter Support for Innovative and Expensive Tech-niques Study. Invest Radiol 2012;47: 711-6.
27. Lassau N, Koscielny S, Chami L, Chebil M, Benatsou B, Roche A, et al. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: earlyevaluation of response to bevacizumab therapy at dynamiccontrast-enhanced US with quantification-preliminary results.Radiology 2011;258: 291-300.
28. Lassau N, Koscielny S, Albiges L, Chami L, Benatsou B, Chebil M, et al. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib:early evaluation of treatment response using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16: 1216-25.
29. Fournier LS, Oudard S, Thiam R, Trinquart L, Banu E, Medioni J, et al. Metastatic renal carcinoma: evaluation of antiangio-genic therapy with dynamic contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology2010;256: 511-8.