ASFNR Recommendations for Clinical Performance of MR Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Perfusion Imaging of the Brain

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Essig M,
   3. Shiroishi MS,
   4. Nguyen TB, et al

   . Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked technical questions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:24–34

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Petrella JR,
   3. Provenzale JM

   . MR perfusion imaging of the brain: techniques and applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:207–19

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Copen WA,
   3. Schaefer PW,
   4. Wu O

   . MR perfusion imaging in acute ischemic stroke. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2011;21:259–83, x

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Barajas RF Jr.,
   3. Chang JS,
   4. Segal MR, 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;253:486–96

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Cha S,
   3. Lupo JM,
   4. Chen MH, et al

   . Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and single brain metastasis by peak height and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1078–84

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Lupo JM,
   3. Cha S,
   4. Chang SM, et al

   . Dynamic susceptibility-weighted perfusion imaging of high-grade gliomas: characterization of spatial heterogeneity. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1446–54

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Calamante F

   . Perfusion MRI using dynamic-susceptibility contrast MRI: quantification issues in patient studies. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2010;21:75–85

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Jackson A,
   3. O'Connor J,
   4. Thompson G, et al

   . Magnetic resonance perfusion imaging in neuro-oncology. Cancer Imaging 2008;8:186–99

   PubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Thompson G,
   3. Mills SJ,
   4. Stivaros SM, et al

   . Imaging of brain tumors: perfusion/permeability. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2010;20:337–53

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Barbier EL,
    3. Lamalle L,
    4. Décorps M

    . Methodology of brain perfusion imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:496–520

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. O'Connor JP,
    3. Jackson A,
    4. Parker GJ, et al

    . DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Br J Cancer 2007;96:189–95

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Pollock JM,
    3. Tan H,
    4. Kraft RA, et al

    . Arterial spin-labeled MR perfusion imaging: clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2009;17:315–38

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Hourani R,
    3. Brant LJ,
    4. Rizk T, et al

    . Can proton MR spectroscopic and perfusion imaging differentiate between neoplastic and nonneoplastic brain lesions in adults? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:366–72

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Calli C,
    3. Kitis O,
    4. Yunten N, et al

    . Perfusion and diffusion MR imaging in enhancing malignant cerebral tumors. Eur J Radiol 2006;58:394–403

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Chiang IC,
    3. Kuo YT,
    4. Lu CY, et al

    . Distinction between high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases using peritumoral 3-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion, and perfusion imagings. Neuroradiology 2004;46:619–27

    PubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Cha S,
    4. Knopp EA, et al

    . High-grade gliomas and solitary metastases: differentiation by using perfusion and proton spectroscopic MR imaging. Radiology 2002;222:715–21

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    2. Liao W,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Wang X, et al

    . Differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphoma and high-grade glioma with dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol 2009;50:217–25

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    2. Toh CH,
    3. Wei KC,
    4. Chang CN, et al

    . Differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphomas and glioblastomas: comparisons of diagnostic performance of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging without and with contrast-leakage correction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1145–49

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    2. Xing C,
    3. Fu X,
    4. Sun X, et al

    . Different expression patterns and functions of acetylated and unacetylated Klf5 in the proliferation and differentiation of prostatic epithelial cells. PLoS One 2013;8:e65538

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    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
21. 21.↵
    2. Arvinda HR,
    3. Kesavadas C,
    4. Sarma PS, et al

    . Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of diffusion and perfusion imaging. J Neurooncol 2009;94:87–96

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Kim H,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Kim JH, et al

    . Gliomas: application of cumulative histogram analysis of normalized cerebral blood volume on 3 T MRI to tumor grading. PLoS One 2013;8:e63462

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    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
24. 24.↵
    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
25. 25.↵
    2. Shin JH,
    3. Lee HK,
    4. Kwun BD, 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
26. 26.↵
    2. Zhang H,
    3. Rodiger LA,
    4. Shen T, et al

    . Perfusion MR imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant meningiomas. Neuroradiology 2008;50:525–30

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Barajas RF Jr.,
    3. Phillips JJ,
    4. Parvataneni R, et al

    . Regional variation in histopathologic features of tumor specimens from treatment-naive glioblastoma correlates with anatomic and physiologic MR imaging. Neuro Oncol 2012;14:942–54

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    2. Lefranc M,
    3. Monet P,
    4. Desenclos C, et al

    . Perfusion MRI as a neurosurgical tool for improved targeting in stereotactic tumor biopsies. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2012;90:240–47

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Gasparetto EL,
    3. Pawlak MA,
    4. Patel SH, 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;250:887–96

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Hu LS,
    3. Baxter LC,
    4. Smith KA, 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;30:552–58

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    2. Hu LS,
    3. Eschbacher JM,
    4. Heiserman JE, et al

    . Reevaluating the imaging definition of tumor progression: perfusion MRI quantifies recurrent glioblastoma tumor fraction, pseudoprogression, and radiation necrosis to predict survival. Neuro Oncol 2012;14:919–30

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    2. Kong DS,
    3. Kim ST,
    4. Kim EH, et al

    . Diagnostic dilemma of pseudoprogression in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastomas: the role of assessing relative cerebral blood flow volume and oxygen-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:382–87

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    2. Sugahara T,
    3. Korogi Y,
    4. 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;21:901–09

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    2. Tsien C,
    3. Galban CJ,
    4. Chenevert TL, et al

    . Parametric response map as an imaging biomarker to distinguish progression from pseudoprogression in high-grade glioma. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2293–99

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
35. 35.↵
    2. Young RJ,
    3. Gupta A,
    4. Shah AD, et al

    . MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging 2013;37:41–49

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Barajas RF,
    3. Chang JS,
    4. Sneed PK, et al

    . Distinguishing recurrent intra-axial metastatic tumor from radiation necrosis following gamma knife radiosurgery using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:367–72

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    2. Mitsuya K,
    3. Nakasu Y,
    4. Horiguchi S, et al

    . Perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging to distinguish the recurrence of metastatic brain tumors from radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 2010;99:81–88

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Akella NS,
    3. Twieg DB,
    4. Mikkelsen T, et al

    . Assessment of brain tumor angiogenesis inhibitors using perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: quality and analysis results of a phase I trial. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:913–22

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 39.↵
    2. Sawlani RN,
    3. Raizer J,
    4. Horowitz SW, et al

    . Glioblastoma: a method for predicting response to antiangiogenic chemotherapy by using MR perfusion imaging–pilot study. Radiology 2010;255:622–28

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
40. 40.↵
    2. Wintermark M,
    3. Sanelli PC,
    4. Albers GW, et al

    . Imaging recommendations for acute stroke and transient ischemic attack patients: a joint statement by the American Society of Neuroradiology, the American College of Radiology, and the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:E117–27

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
41. 41.↵
    2. Apruzzese A,
    3. Silvestrini M,
    4. Floris R, et al

    . Cerebral hemodynamics in asymptomatic patients with internal carotid artery occlusion: a dynamic susceptibility contrast MR and transcranial Doppler study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1062–67

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    2. Kavec M,
    3. Usenius JP,
    4. Tuunanen PI, et al

    . Assessment of cerebral hemodynamics and oxygen extraction using dynamic susceptibility contrast and spin echo blood oxygenation level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging: applications to carotid stenosis patients. Neuroimage 2004;22:258–67

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Vatter H,
    3. Guresir E,
    4. Berkefeld J, et al

    . Perfusion-diffusion mismatch in MRI to indicate endovascular treatment of cerebral vasospasm after subarachnoid haemorrhage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011;82:876–83

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
44. 44.↵
    2. Weisskoff RM,
    3. Zuo CS,
    4. Boxerman JL, et al

    . Microscopic susceptibility variation and transverse relaxation: theory and experiment. Magn Reson Med 1994;31:601–10

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
45. 45.↵
    2. Boxerman JL,
    3. Hamberg LM,
    4. Rosen BR, et al

    . MR contrast due to intravascular magnetic susceptibility perturbations. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:555–66

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
46. 46.↵
    2. Schmiedeskamp H,
    3. Straka M,
    4. Newbould RD, et al

    . Combined spin- and gradient-echo perfusion-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:30–40

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    2. Vonken EJ,
    3. van Osch MJ,
    4. Bakker CJ, et al

    . Measurement of cerebral perfusion with dual-echo multi-slice quantitative dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:109–17

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    2. Dennie J,
    3. Mandeville JB,
    4. Boxerman JL, et al

    . NMR imaging of changes in vascular morphology due to tumor angiogenesis. Magn Reson Med 1998;40:793–99

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
49. 49.↵
    2. Donahue KM,
    3. Krouwer HG,
    4. Rand SD, et al

    . Utility of simultaneously acquired gradient-echo and spin-echo cerebral blood volume and morphology maps in brain tumor patients. Magn Reson Med 2000;43:845–53

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
50. 50.↵
    2. Boxerman JL,
    3. Rosen BR,
    4. Weisskoff RM

    . Signal-to-noise analysis of cerebral blood volume maps from dynamic NMR imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:528–37

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    2. Knutsson L,
    3. Stahlberg F,
    4. Wirestam R

    . Aspects on the accuracy of cerebral perfusion parameters obtained by dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI: a simulation study. Magn Reson Imaging 2004;22:789–98

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
52. 52.↵
    2. Smith MR,
    3. Lu H,
    4. Frayne R

    . Signal-to-noise ratio effects in quantitative cerebral perfusion using dynamic susceptibility contrast agents. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:122–28

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    2. Thilmann O,
    3. Larsson EM,
    4. Bjorkman-Burtscher IM, et al

    . Effects of echo time variation on perfusion assessment using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging 2004;22:929–35

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
54. 54.↵
    2. Boxerman JL,
    3. Schmainda KM,
    4. Weisskoff RM

    . Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:859–67

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
55. 55.↵
    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
56. 56.↵
    2. Calamante F,
    3. Vonken EJ,
    4. van Osch MJ

    . Contrast agent concentration measurements affecting quantification of bolus-tracking perfusion MRI. Magn Reson Med 2007;58:544–53

    CrossRefPubMed
57. 57.↵
    2. Wintermark M,
    3. Albers GW,
    4. Alexandrov AV, et al

    . Acute stroke imaging research roadmap. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:e23–30

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
58. 58.↵
    2. Newbould RD,
    3. Skare ST,
    4. Jochimsen TH, et al

    . Perfusion mapping with multiecho multishot parallel imaging EPI. Magn Reson Med 2007;58:70–81

    CrossRefPubMed
59. 59.↵
    2. Quarles CC,
    3. Gochberg DF,
    4. Gore JC, et al

    . A theoretical framework to model DSC-MRI data acquired in the presence of contrast agent extravasation. Phys Med Biol 2009;54:5749–66

    CrossRefPubMed
60. 60.↵
    2. Schmainda KM,
    3. Rand SD,
    4. Joseph AM, et al

    . Characterization of a first-pass gradient-echo spin-echo method to predict brain tumor grade and angiogenesis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1524–32

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
61. 61.↵
    2. Boxerman JL,
    3. Prah DE,
    4. Paulson ES, et al

    . The role of preload and leakage correction in gadolinium-based cerebral blood volume estimation determined by comparison with MION as a criterion standard. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1081–87

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
62. 62.↵
    2. Hu LS,
    3. Baxter LC,
    4. 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 Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:40–48

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
63. 63.↵
    2. Gahramanov S,
    3. Raslan AM,
    4. Muldoon LL, et al

    . Potential for differentiation of pseudoprogression from true tumor progression with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using ferumoxytol vs. gadoteridol: a pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79:514–23

    CrossRefPubMed
64. 64.↵
    2. van Osch MJ,
    3. Vonken EJ,
    4. Wu O, et al

    . Model of the human vasculature for studying the influence of contrast injection speed on cerebral perfusion MRI. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:614–22

    CrossRefPubMed
65. 65.↵
    2. Kosior RK,
    3. Kosior JC,
    4. Frayne R

    . Improved dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC)-MR perfusion estimates by motion correction. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:1167–72

    CrossRefPubMed
66. 66.↵
    2. Willats L,
    3. Connelly A,
    4. Calamante F

    . Improved deconvolution of perfusion MRI data in the presence of bolus delay and dispersion. Magn Reson Med 2006;56:146–56

    CrossRefPubMed
67. 67.↵
    2. Bleeker EJ,
    3. van Osch MJ,
    4. Connelly A, et al

    . New criterion to aid manual and automatic selection of the arterial input function in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med 2011;65:448–56

    CrossRefPubMed
68. 68.↵
    2. Rosen BR,
    3. Belliveau JW,
    4. Vevea JM, et al

    . Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med 1990;14:249–65

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
69. 69.↵
    2. Paulson ES,
    3. 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
70. 70.↵
    2. Bjornerud A,
    3. Sorensen AG,
    4. Mouridsen K, et al

    . T1- and T2*-dominant extravasation correction in DSC-MRI. Part I. Theoretical considerations and implications for assessment of tumor hemodynamic properties. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2011;31:2041–53

    CrossRefPubMed
71. 71.↵
    2. Willats L,
    3. Calamante F

    . The 39 steps: evading error and deciphering the secrets for accurate dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. NMR Biomed 2013;26:913–31

    CrossRefPubMed
72. 72.↵
    2. Bleeker EJW,
    3. van Buchem MA,
    4. van Osch MJP

    . Optimal location for arterial input function measurements near the middle cerebral artery in first-pass perfusion MRI. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2009;29:840–52

    CrossRefPubMed
73. 73.↵
    2. Wu O,
    3. Ostergaard L,
    4. Sorensen AG

    . Technical aspects of perfusion-weighted imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2005;15:623–37, xi

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
74. 74.↵
    2. Thijs VN,
    3. Somford DM,
    4. Bammer R, et al

    . Influence of arterial input function on hypoperfusion volumes measured with perfusion-weighted imaging. Stroke 2004;35:94–98

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
75. 75.↵
    2. Calamante F,
    3. Gadian DG,
    4. Connelly A

    . Quantification of perfusion using bolus tracking magnetic resonance imaging in stroke: assumptions, limitations, and potential implications for clinical use. Stroke 2002;33:1146–51

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
76. 76.↵
    2. Wintermark M,
    3. Sesay M,
    4. Barbier E, et al

    . Comparative overview of brain perfusion imaging techniques. Stroke 2005;36:e83–99

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
77. 77.↵
    2. Keston P,
    3. Murray AD,
    4. Jackson A

    . Cerebral perfusion imaging using contrast-enhanced MRI. Clin Radiol 2003;58:505–13

    CrossRefPubMed
78. 78.↵
    2. Carroll TJ,
    3. Haughton VM,
    4. Rowley HA, et al

    . Confounding effect of large vessels on MR perfusion images analyzed with independent component analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:1007–12

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
79. 79.↵
    2. Reber PJ,
    3. Wong EC,
    4. Buxton RB, et al

    . Correction of off resonance-related distortion in echo-planar imaging using EPI-based field maps. Magn Reson Med 1998;39:328–30

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
80. 80.↵
    2. Covarrubias DJ,
    3. Rosen BR,
    4. Lev MH

    . Dynamic magnetic resonance perfusion imaging of brain tumors. Oncologist 2004;9:528–37

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
81. 81.↵
    2. Bobek-Billewicz B,
    3. Stasik-Pres G,
    4. Majchrzak H, et al

    . Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using perfusion, diffusion-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopy. Folia Neuropathol 2010;48:81–92

    PubMedWeb of Science
82. 82.↵
    2. Bedekar D,
    3. Jensen T,
    4. Schmainda KM

    . Standardization of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) image maps for ease of both inter- and intrapatient comparisons. Magn Reson Med 2010;64:907–13

    CrossRefPubMed
83. 83.↵
    2. Essig M,
    3. Nguyen TB,
    4. Shiroishi MS, et al

    . Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked clinical questions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:W495–510

    CrossRefPubMed
84. 84.↵
    2. Caseiras GB,
    3. Thornton JS,
    4. Yousry T, et al

    . Inclusion or exclusion of intratumoral vessels in relative cerebral blood volume characterization in low-grade gliomas: does it make a difference? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1140–41

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
85. 85.↵
    2. Wetzel SG,
    3. Cha S,
    4. Johnson G, et al

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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
86. 86.↵
    2. Zonari P,
    3. Baraldi P,
    4. Crisi G

    . Multimodal MRI in the characterization of glial neoplasms: the combined role of single-voxel MR spectroscopy, diffusion imaging and echo-planar perfusion imaging. Neuroradiology 2007;49:795–803

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
87. 87.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Young R,
    4. Babb J, et al

    . Histogram analysis versus region of interest analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging data in the grading of cerebral gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:761–66

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
88. 88.↵
    2. Young R,
    3. Babb J,
    4. Law M, et al

    . Comparison of region-of-interest analysis with three different histogram analysis methods in the determination of perfusion metrics in patients with brain gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:1053–63

    CrossRefPubMed
89. 89.↵
    2. Østergaard L

    . Principles of cerebral perfusion imaging by bolus tracking. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22:710–17

    CrossRefPubMed
90. 90.↵
    2. Geer CP,
    3. Simonds J,
    4. Anvery A, et al

    . Does MR perfusion imaging impact management decisions for patients with brain tumors? A prospective study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:556–62

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
91. 91.↵
    2. Lev MH,
    3. Ozsunar Y,
    4. Henson JW, 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 [corrected]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:214–21

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
92. 92.↵
    2. Bisdas S,
    3. Kirkpatrick M,
    4. Giglio P, 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
93. 93.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Young RJ,
    4. Babb JS, et al

    . Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2008;247:490–98

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
94. 94.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Oh S,
    4. Johnson G, et al

    . Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging predicts patient outcome as an adjunct to histopathology: a second reference standard in the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of low-grade gliomas. Neurosurgery 2006;58:1099–107; discussion 1099–107

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
95. 95.↵
    2. Mangla R,
    3. Singh G,
    4. Ziegelitz D, et al

    . Changes in relative cerebral blood volume 1 month after radiation-temozolomide therapy can help predict overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology 2010;256:575–84

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
96. 96.↵
    2. Spampinato MV,
    3. Schiarelli C,
    4. Cianfoni A, et al

    . Correlation between cerebral blood volume measurements by perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and two-year progression-free survival in gliomas. Neuroradiol J 2013;26:385–95

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
97. 97.↵
    2. Danchaivijitr N,
    3. Waldman AD,
    4. Tozer DJ, et al

    . Low-grade gliomas: do changes in rCBV measurements at longitudinal perfusion-weighted MR imaging predict malignant transformation? Radiology 2008;247:170–78

    CrossRefPubMed
98. 98.↵
    2. Xing Z,
    3. You RX,
    4. Li J, et al

    . Differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphomas from high-grade gliomas by rCBV and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Clin Neuroradiol 2014;24:329–36

    CrossRefPubMed
99. 99.↵
    2. Saloner D,
    3. Uzelac A,
    4. Hetts S, et al

    . Modern meningioma imaging techniques. J Neurooncol 2010;99:333–40

    CrossRefPubMed
100. 100.↵
     2. Baird AE,
     3. Warach S

     . Magnetic resonance imaging of acute stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1998;18:583–609

     CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
101. 101.↵
     2. Warach S,
     3. Chien D,
     4. Li W, et al

     . Fast magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging of acute human stroke. Neurology 1992;42:1717–23

     CrossRef
102. 102.↵
     2. Chalela JA,
     3. Kidwell CS,
     4. Nentwich LM, et al

     . Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in emergency assessment of patients with suspected acute stroke: a prospective comparison. Lancet 2007;369:293–98

     CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
103. 103.↵
     2. Kumon Y,
     3. Zenke K,
     4. Kusunoki K, et al

     . Diagnostic use of isotropic diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with ischaemic stroke: detection of the lesion responsible for the clinical deficit. Neuroradiology 1999;41:777–84

     CrossRefPubMed
104. 104.↵
     2. Lansberg MG,
     3. Norbash AM,
     4. Marks MP, et al

     . Advantages of adding diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to conventional magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating acute stroke. Arch Neurol 2000;57:1311–16

     CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
105. 105.↵
     2. Lutsep HL,
     3. Albers GW,
     4. DeCrespigny A, et al

     . Clinical utility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of ischemic stroke. Ann Neurol 1997;41:574–80

     CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
106. 106.↵
     2. Tortora F,
     3. Cirillo M,
     4. Ferrara M, et al

     . DWI reversibility after intra-arterial thrombolysis. a case report and literature review. Neuroradiol J 2010;23:752–62

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
107. 107.↵
     2. Sasaki M,
     3. Kudo K,
     4. Christensen S, et al

     . Penumbral imaging by using perfusion computed tomography and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: current concepts. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;22:1212–15

     CrossRefPubMed
108. 108.↵
     2. Olivot JM,
     3. Mlynash M,
     4. Thijs VN, et al

     . Optimal Tmax threshold for predicting penumbral tissue in acute stroke. Stroke 2009;40:469–75

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
109. 109.↵
     2. Takasawa M,
     3. Jones PS,
     4. Guadagno JV, et al

     . How reliable is perfusion MR in acute stroke? Validation and determination of the penumbra threshold against quantitative PET. Stroke 2008;39:870–77

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
110. 110.↵
     2. Zhang N,
     3. Zhang L,
     4. Qiu B, et al

     . Correlation of volume transfer coefficient Ktrans with histopathologic grades of gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;36:355–63

     CrossRefPubMed
111. 111.↵
     2. Choi HS,
     3. Kim AH,
     4. Ahn SS, et al

     . Glioma grading capability: comparisons among parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and ADC value on DWI. Korean J Radiol 2013;14:487–92

     CrossRefPubMed
112. 112.↵
     2. Nguyen TB,
     3. Cron GO,
     4. 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 Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1539–45

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
113. 113.↵
     2. Bisdas S,
     3. Naegele T,
     4. Ritz R, et al

     . Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acad Radiol 2011;18:575–83

     CrossRefPubMed
114. 114.↵
     2. Suh CH,
     3. Kim HS,
     4. Choi YJ, et al

     . Prediction of pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastomas using the initial and final area under the curves ratio derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:2278–86

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
115. 115.↵
     2. Chung WJ,
     3. Kim HS,
     4. Kim N, et al

     . Recurrent glioblastoma: optimum area under the curve method derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2013;269:561–68

     CrossRefPubMed
116. 116.↵
     2. Narang J,
     3. Jain R,
     4. Arbab AS, 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 Oncol 2011;13:1037–46

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
117. 117.↵
     2. Sorensen AG,
     3. Batchelor TT,
     4. Zhang WT, et al

     . A “vascular normalization index” as potential mechanistic biomarker to predict survival after a single dose of cediranib in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Cancer Res 2009;69:5296–300

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
118. 118.↵
     2. Gerstner ER,
     3. Duda DG,
     4. di Tomaso E, et al

     . VEGF inhibitors in the treatment of cerebral edema in patients with brain cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2009;6:229–36

     CrossRefPubMed
119. 119.↵
     2. Sorensen AG,
     3. Emblem KE,
     4. Polaskova P, et al

     . Increased survival of glioblastoma patients who respond to antiangiogenic therapy with elevated blood perfusion. Cancer Res 2012;72:402–07

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
120. 120.↵
     2. Batchelor TT,
     3. Gerstner ER,
     4. Emblem KE, et al

     . Improved tumor oxygenation and survival in glioblastoma patients who show increased blood perfusion after cediranib and chemoradiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110:19059–64

     Abstract/FREE Full Text