Comparison of Multiple Parameters Obtained on 3T Pulsed Arterial Spin-Labeling, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, and MRS and the Ki-67 Labeling Index in Evaluating Glioma Grading

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Louis DN,
   3. Ohgaki H,
   4. Wiestler OD, et al

   . The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 2007;114:97–109

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Warmuth C,
   3. Gunther M,
   4. 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
3. 3.↵
   2. Kimura H,
   3. Takeuchi H,
   4. Koshimoto Y, 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
4. 4.↵
   2. Kim HS,
   3. 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
5. 5.↵
   2. Noguchi T,
   3. Yoshiura T,
   4. Hiwatashi A, 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
6. 6.↵
   2. Hirai T,
   3. Kitajima M,
   4. Nakamura H, et al

   . Quantitative blood flow measurements in gliomas using arterial spin-labeling at 3T: intermodality agreement and inter- and intraobserver reproducibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:2073–79

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Chawla S,
   3. Wang S,
   4. Wolf RL, et al

   . Arterial spin-labeling and MR spectroscopy in the differentiation of gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1683–89

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Zikou AK,
   3. Alexiou GA,
   4. Kosta P, et al

   . Diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI in glioblastoma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2012;114:607–12

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Liu X,
   3. Tian W,
   4. Kolar B, et al

   . MR diffusion tensor and perfusion-weighted imaging in preoperative grading of supratentorial nonenhancing gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:447–55

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Lee EJ,
    3. Lee SK,
    4. Agid R, et al

    . Preoperative grading of presumptive low-grade astrocytomas on MR imaging: diagnostic value of minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1872–77

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Yang D,
    3. Korogi Y,
    4. Sugahara T, et al

    . Cerebral gliomas: prospective comparison of multivoxel 2D chemical-shift imaging proton MR spectroscopy, echoplanar perfusion and diffusion-weighted MRI. Neuroradiology 2002;44:656–66

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Zou QG,
    3. Xu HB,
    4. Liu F, et al

    . In the assessment of supratentorial glioma grade: the combined role of multivoxel proton MR spectroscopy and diffusion tensor imaging. Clin Radiol 2011;66:953–60

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Li X,
    3. Lu Y,
    4. Pirzkall A, et al

    . Analysis of the spatial characteristics of metabolic abnormalities in newly diagnosed glioma patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002;16:229–37

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Di Costanzo A,
    3. Scarabino T,
    4. Trojsi F, et al

    . Multiparametric 3T MR approach to the assessment of cerebral gliomas: tumor extent and malignancy. Neuroradiology 2006;48:622–31

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Yang S,
    4. 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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Weber MA,
    3. Zoubaa S,
    4. Schlieter M, et al

    . Diagnostic performance of spectroscopic and perfusion MRI for distinction of brain tumors. Neurology 2006;66:1899–906

    CrossRef
17. 17.↵
    2. Roy B,
    3. Gupta RK,
    4. Maudsley AA, et al

    . Utility of multiparametric 3-T MRI for glioma characterization. Neuroradiology 2013;55:603–13

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Server A,
    3. Kulle B,
    4. Gadmar ØB, et al

    . Measurements of diagnostic examination performance using quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient and proton MR spectroscopic imaging in the preoperative evaluation of tumor grade in cerebral gliomas. Eur J Radiol 2011:80:462–70

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Johannessen AL,
    3. Torp SH

    . The clinical value of Ki-67/MIB-1 labeling index in human astrocytomas. Pathol Oncol Res 2006;12:143–47

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Guillevin R,
    3. Menuel C,
    4. Duffau H, et al

    . Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy predicts proliferative activity in diffuse low-grade gliomas. J Neurooncol 2008;87:181–87

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Yin Y,
    3. Tong D,
    4. Liu X, et al

    . Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with Ki-67 in the diagnosis of gliomas. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 2012:34:503–08

    PubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Luh WM,
    3. Wong EC,
    4. Bandettini PA, et al

    . QUIPSS II with thin-slice TI1 periodic saturation: a method for improving accuracy of quantitative perfusion imaging using pulsed arterial spin labeling. Magn Reson Med 1999;41:1246–54

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Fink JR,
    3. Carr RB,
    4. Matsusue E, et al

    . Comparison of 3 Tesla proton MR spectroscopy, MR perfusion and MR diffusion for distinguishing glioma recurrence from posttreatment effects. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;35:56–63

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Magalhaes A,
    3. Godfrey W,
    4. Shen Y, et al

    . Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of brain tumors correlated with pathology. Acad Radiol 2005;12:51–57

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Cha S,
    3. Knopp EA,
    4. Johnson G, et al

    . Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2002;223:11–29

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Järnum H,
    3. Steffensen EG,
    4. 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;52:307–17

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Aronen HJ,
    3. Gazit IE,
    4. Louis DN, et al

    . Cerebral blood volume maps of gliomas: comparison with tumor grade and histologic findings. Radiology 1994;191:41–51

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Knopp EA,
    3. Cha S,
    4. Johnson G, et al

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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. Kim MJ,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Kim JH, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability of pulsed arterial spin labeling for glioma grading. Acta Radiol 2008;49:450–57

    FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    2. Sharma S,
    3. Sharma MC,
    4. Gupta DK, et al

    . Angiogenic patterns and their quantitation in high grade astrocytic tumors. J Neurooncol 2006;79:19–30

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Calvar JA,
    3. Meli FJ,
    4. Romero C, et al

    . Characterization of brain tumors by MRS, DWI and Ki-67 labeling index. J Neurooncol 2005;72:273–80

    CrossRefPubMed