Quantitative Blood Flow Measurements in Gliomas Using Arterial Spin-Labeling at 3T: Intermodality Agreement and Inter- and Intraobserver Reproducibility Study

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Sugahara T,
   2. Korogi Y,
   3. Kochi M,
   4. et al

   . Correlation of MR imaging-determined cerebral blood volume maps with histologic and angiographic determination of vascularity of gliomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:1479–86

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Knopp EA,
   2. Cha S,
   3. Johnson G,
   4. et al

   . Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 1999;211:791–98

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Lev MH,
   2. Ozsunar Y,
   3. Henson JW,
   4. et al

   . Glial tumor grading and outcome prediction using dynamic spin-echo MR susceptibility mapping compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR: confounding effect of elevated rCBV of oligodendrogliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:214–21

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Law M,
   2. Yang S,
   3. Babb JS,
   4. et al

   . Comparison of cerebral blood volume and vascular permeability from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with glioma grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:746–55

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Law M,
   2. Oh S,
   3. Babb JS,
   4. et al

   . Low-grade gliomas: dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging—prediction of patient clinical response. Radiology 2006;238:658–67

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Hirai T,
   2. Murakami R,
   3. Nakamura H,
   4. et al

   . Prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging of high-grade astrocytomas: long-term follow-up study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1505–10

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Bisdas S,
   2. Kirkpatrick M,
   3. Giglio P,
   4. et al

   . Cerebral blood volume measurements by perfusion-weighted MR imaging in gliomas: ready for prime time in predicting short-term outcome and recurrent disease? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:681–88

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Petersen ET,
   2. Zimine I,
   3. Ho YC,
   4. et al

   . Non-invasive measurement of perfusion: A critical review of arterial spin labelling techniques. Br J Radiol 2006;79:688–701

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Deibler AR,
   2. Pollock JM,
   3. Kraft RA,
   4. et al

   . Arterial spin-labeling in routine clinical practice. Part 1. Technique and artifacts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1228–34

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Deibler AR,
    2. Pollock JM,
    3. Kraft RA,
    4. et al

    . Arterial spin-labeling in routine clinical practice. Part 2. Hypoperfusion patterns. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1235–41

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Deibler AR,
    2. Pollock JM,
    3. Kraft RA,
    4. et al

    . Arterial spin-labeling in routine clinical practice. Part 3. Hyperperfusion patterns. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1428–35

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Warmuth C,
    2. Gunther M,
    3. Zimmer C

    . Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;228:523–32

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Kimura H,
    2. Takeuchi H,
    3. Koshimoto Y,
    4. et al

    . Perfusion imaging of meningioma by using continuous arterial spin-labeling: comparison with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR images and histopathologic features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:85–93

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Kim HS,
    2. Kim SY

    . A prospective study on the added value of pulsed arterial spin-labeling and apparent diffusion coefficients in the grading of gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1693–99

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Noguchi T,
    2. Yoshiura T,
    3. Hiwatashi A,
    4. et al

    . Perfusion imaging of brain tumors using arterial spin-labeling: correlation with histopathologic vascular density. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:688–93

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Petersen ET,
    2. Lim T,
    3. Golay X

    . Model-free arterial spin labeling quantification approach for perfusion MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006;55:219–32

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Petersen ET,
    2. Mouridsen K,
    3. Golay X

    , all named co-authors of the QUASAR Test-Retest Study. The QUASAR reproducibility study. Part II. Results from a multi-center arterial spin labeling test-retest study. Neuroimage 2010;49:104–13

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Louis DN,
    2. Ohgaki H,
    3. Wiestler OD,
    4. et al

    . World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2007
19. 19.↵
    1. Paulson ES,
    2. Schmainda KM

    . Comparison of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR methods: recommendations for measuring relative cerebral blood volume in brain tumors. Radiology 2008;249:601–13

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Wong EC,
    2. Buxton RB,
    3. Frank LR

    . Quantitative imaging of perfusion using a single subtraction (QUIPSS and QUIPSS II). Magn Reson Med 1998;39:702–08

    PubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Günther M,
    2. Bock M,
    3. Schad LR

    . Arterial spin labeling in combination with a look-locker sampling strategy: inflow turbo-sampling EPI-FAIR (ITS-FAIR). Magn Reson Med 2001;46:974–84

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Oppo K,
    2. Leen E,
    3. Angerson WJ,
    4. et al

    . Doppler perfusion index: an interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology 1998;208:453–57

    PubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Shrout PE,
    2. Fleiss JL

    . Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420–28

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Donner A,
    2. Zou G

    . Testing the equality of dependent intraclass correlation coefficients. The Statistician 2002;51:367–79

    CrossRef
25. 25.↵
    1. Fanchin R,
    2. Taieb J,
    3. Lozano DH,
    4. et al

    . High reproducibility of serum anti-Mullerian hormone measurements suggests a multi-staged follicular secretion and strengthens its role in the assessment of ovarian follicular status. Hum Reprod 2005;20:923–27

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    1. Bland JM,
    2. Altman DG

    . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Wetzel SG,
    2. Cha S,
    3. Johnson G,
    4. et al

    . Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology 2002;224:797–803

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Sugahara T,
    2. Korogi Y,
    3. Kochi M,
    4. et al

    . Perfusion-sensitive MR imaging of gliomas: comparison between gradient-echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1306–15

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    1. Zaharchuk G

    . Theoretical basis of hemodynamic MR imaging techniques to measure cerebral blood volume, cerebral blood flow, and permeability. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1850–58

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    1. Thomas DL,
    2. Lythgoe MF,
    3. Calamante F,
    4. et al

    . Simultaneous noninvasive measurement of CBF and CBV using double-echo FAIR (DEFAIR). Magn Reson Med 2001;45:853–63

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    1. Kim T,
    2. 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;54:333–42

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Shin JH,
    2. Lee HK,
    3. Kwun BD,
    4. et al

    . Using relative cerebral blood flow and volume to evaluate the histopathologic grade of cerebral gliomas: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:783–89

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Hakyemez B,
    2. Erdogan C,
    3. Ercan I,
    4. et al

    . High-grade and low-grade gliomas: differentiation by using perfusion MR imaging. Clin Radiol 2005;60:493–502

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Kuo PH,
    2. Kanal E,
    3. Abu-Alfa AK,
    4. et al

    . Gadolinium-based MR contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Radiology 2007;242:647–49

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science