Utility of Percentage Signal Recovery and Baseline Signal in DSC-MRI Optimized for Relative CBV Measurement for Differentiating Glioblastoma, Lymphoma, Metastasis, and Meningioma

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Stadnik TW,
   3. Demaerel P,
   4. Luypaert RR, et al

   . Imaging tutorial: differential diagnosis of bright lesions on diffusion-weighted MR images. Radiographics 2003;23:e7 pmid:12886888

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Welker K,
   3. Boxerman J,
   4. Kalnin A, et al

   ; American Society of Functional Neuroradiology MR Perfusion Standards and Practice Subcommittee of the ASFNR Clinical Practice Committee. ASFNR recommendations for clinical performance of MR dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:E41–51 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4341 pmid:25907520

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Shiroishi MS,
   3. Castellazzi G,
   4. Boxerman JL, et al

   . Principles of T2*-weighted dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI technique in brain tumor imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;41:296–313 doi:10.1002/jmri.24648 pmid:24817252

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   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 pmid:16611779

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Semmineh NB,
   3. Xu J,
   4. Skinner JT, et al

   . Assessing tumor cytoarchitecture using multiecho DSC-MRI derived measures of the transverse relaxivity at tracer equilibrium (TRATE). Magn Reson Med 2015;74:772–84 doi:10.1002/mrm.25435 pmid:25227668

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Leu K,
   3. Boxerman JL,
   4. Ellingson BM

   . Effects of MRI protocol parameters, preload injection dose, fractionation strategies, and leakage correction algorithms on the fidelity of dynamic-susceptibility contrast MRI estimates of relative cerebral blood volume in gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:478–84 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5027 pmid:28034995

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   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 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2934 pmid:22322605

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Bell LC,
   3. Hu LS,
   4. Stokes AM, et al

   . Characterizing the influence of preload dosing on percent signal recovery (PSR) and cerebral blood volume (CBV) measurements in a patient population with high-grade glioma using dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Tomography 2017;3:89–95 doi:10.18383/j.tom.2017.0000 pmid:28825039

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Boxerman JL,
   3. Paulson ES,
   4. Prah MA, et al

   . The effect of pulse sequence parameters and contrast agent dose on percentage signal recovery in DSC-MRI: implications for clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1364–69 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3477 pmid:23413249

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Mangla R,
    3. Kolar B,
    4. Zhu T, et al

    . Percentage signal recovery derived from MR dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging is useful to differentiate common enhancing malignant lesions of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1004–10 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2441 pmid:21511863

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    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 doi:10.1002/1522-2594(200006)43:6<845::AID-MRM10>3.0.CO;2-J pmid:10861879

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Royston P

    . The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ 2006;332:1080 pmid:16675816

    FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Han CH,
    3. Batchelor TT

    . Diagnosis and management of primary central nervous system lymphoma. Cancer 2017;123:4314–24 doi:10.1002/cncr.30965 pmid:28950405

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    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 doi:10.1007/s00062-013-0255-5 pmid:23994941

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Hartmann M,
    3. Heiland S,
    4. Harting I, et al

    . Distinguishing of primary cerebral lymphoma from high-grade glioma with perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosci Lett 2003;338:119–22 doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(02)01367-8 pmid:12566167

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    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 doi:10.1080/02841850802616752 pmid:19096950

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Zimny A,
    3. Sasiadek M

    . Contribution of perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation of meningiomas and other extra-axial tumors: case reports and literature review. J Neurooncol 2011;103:777–83 doi:10.1007/s11060-010-0445-9 pmid:21061142

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Kremer S,
    3. Grand S,
    4. Rémy C, et al

    . Contribution of dynamic contrast MR imaging to the differentiation between dural metastasis and meningioma. Neuroradiology 2004;46:642–48 doi:10.1007/s00234-004-1194-2 pmid:15232661

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Lui YW,
    3. Malhotra A,
    4. Farinhas JM, et al

    . Dynamic perfusion MRI characteristics of dural metastases and meningiomas: a pilot study characterizing the first-pass wash-in phase beyond relative cerebral blood volume. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:886–90 doi:10.2214/AJR.10.5309 pmid:21427341

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Semmineh NB,
    3. Bell LC,
    4. Stokes AM, et al

    . Optimization of acquisition and analysis methods for clinical dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI using a population-based digital reference object. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1981–88 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5827 pmid:30309842

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Kremer S,
    3. Grand S,
    4. Berger F, et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: differentiating melanoma and renal carcinoma metastases from high-grade astrocytomas and other metastases. Neuroradiology 2003;45:44–49 doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0886-8 pmid:12525954

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Shi R,
    3. Jiang T,
    4. Si L, et al

    . Correlations of magnetic resonance, perfusion-weighed imaging parameters and microvessel density in meningioma. J BUON 2016;21:709–13 pmid:27569094

    PubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Neska-Matuszewska M,
    3. Bladowska J,
    4. Sąsiadek M, et al

    . Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme, metastases and primary central nervous system lymphomas using multiparametric perfusion and diffusion MR imaging of a tumor core and a peritumoral zone: searching for a practical approach. PLoS One 2018;13:e0191341 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191341 pmid:29342201

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Cha S,
    3. Lupo JM,
    4. Chen M-H, 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 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0484 pmid:17569962

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    2. Long DM

    . Capillary ultrastructure in human metastatic brain tumors. J Neurosurg 1979;51:53–58 doi:10.3171/jns.1979.51.1.0053 pmid:448419

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Sarkaria JN,
    3. Hu LS,
    4. Parney IF, et al

    . Is the blood-brain barrier really disrupted in all glioblastomas? A critical assessment of existing clinical data. Neuro Oncol 2018;20:184–91 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox175 pmid:29016900

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Rojiani AM,
    3. Dorovini-Zis K

    . Glomeruloid vascular structures in glioblastoma multiforme: an immunohistochemical and ultrastructural study. J Neurosurg 1996;85:1078–84 doi:10.3171/jns.1996.85.6.1078 pmid:8929498

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Zhao J,
    3. Yang Z,
    4. Luo B, et al

    . Quantitative evaluation of diffusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR in tumor parenchyma and peritumoral area for distinction of brain tumors. PLoS One 2015;10:e0138573 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138573 pmid:26384329

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Mouthuy N,
    3. Cosnard G,
    4. Abarca-Quinones J, et al

    . Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to differentiate high-grade gliomas and brain metastases. J Neuroradiol 2012;39:301–07 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2011.11.002 pmid:22197404

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Jung BC,
    3. Arevalo-Perez J,
    4. Lyo JK, et al

    . Comparison of glioblastomas and brain metastases using dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: comparison of glioblastomas and brain. J Neuroimaging 2016;26:240–46 doi:10.1111/jon.12281 pmid:26235208

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Anzalone N,
    3. Castellano A,
    4. Cadioli M, et al

    . Brain gliomas: multicenter standardized assessment of dynamic contrast-enhanced and dynamic susceptibility contrast MR images. Radiology 2018;287:933–43 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017170362 pmid:29361245

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Stokes AM,
    3. Skinner JT,
    4. Yankeelov T, et al

    . Assessment of a simplified spin and gradient echo (sSAGE) approach for human brain tumor perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2016;34:1248–55 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2016.07.004 pmid:27457801

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Quarles CC,
    3. Gore JC,
    4. Xu L, et al

    . Comparison of dual-echo DSC-MRI- and DCE-MRI-derived contrast agent kinetic parameters. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:944–53 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.03.008 pmid:22617148

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Akeson P,
    3. Nordström CH,
    4. Holtås S

    . Time-dependency in brain lesion enhancement with gadodiamide injection. Acta Radiol 1997;38:19–24 pmid:9059396

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science