Diagnostic Performance of TOF, 4D MRA, Arterial Spin-Labeling, and Susceptibility-Weighted Angiography Sequences in the Post-Radiosurgery Monitoring of Brain AVMs

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Byun J,
   2. Kwon DH,
   3. Lee DH, et al

   . Radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformation (AVM): current treatment strategy and radiosurgical technique for large cerebral AVM. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2020;63:415–26 doi:10.3340/jkns.2020.0008 pmid:32423182

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Jayaraman MV,
   2. Marcellus ML,
   3. Do HM, et al

   . Hemorrhage rate in patients with Spetzler-Martin grades IV and V arteriovenous malformations: is treatment justified? Stroke 2007;38:325–29 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000254497.24545.de pmid:17194881

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Chang W,
   2. Loecher MW,
   3. Wu Y, et al

   . Hemodynamic changes in patients with arteriovenous malformations assessed using high-resolution 3D radial phase-contrast MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1565–72 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3010 pmid:22499844

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Lv X,
   2. Li Y,
   3. Jiiang C, et al

   . Brain arteriovenous malformations and endovascular treatment: effect on seizures. Interv Neuroradiol 2010;16:39–45 doi:10.1177/159101991001600105 pmid:20377978

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Laakso A,
   2. Hernesniemi J

   . Arteriovenous malformations: epidemiology and clinical presentation. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2012;23:1–6 doi:10.1016/j.nec.2011.09.012 pmid:22107853

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Heit JJ,
   2. Thakur NH,
   3. Iv M, et al

   . Arterial-spin labeling MRI identifies residual cerebral arteriovenous malformation following stereotactic radiosurgery treatment. J Neuroradiol 2020;47:13–19 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2018.12.004 pmid:30658138

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Salmela MB,
   2. Mortazavi S,
   3. Jagadeesan BD, et al

   ; Expert Panel on Neurologic Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) Cerebrovascular Disease. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S34–61 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.051 pmid:28473091

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Mossa-Basha M,
   2. Chen J,
   3. Gandhi D

   . Imaging of cerebral arteriovenous malformations and dural arteriovenous fistulas. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2012;23:27–42 doi:10.1016/j.nec.2011.09.007 pmid:22107856

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Telischak NA,
   2. Detre JA,
   3. Zaharchuk G

   . Arterial spin labeling MRI: clinical applications in the brain. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;41:1165–80 doi:10.1002/jmri.24751 pmid:25236477

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Wang M,
    2. Ma Y,
    3. Chen F, et al

    . Acceleration of pCASL-based cerebral 4D MR angiography using compressed SENSE: a comparison with SENSE. Front Neurol 2022;13:796271 doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.796271 pmid:35386411

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Hadizadeh DR,
    2. Kukuk GM,
    3. Steck DT, et al

    . Noninvasive evaluation of cerebral arteriovenous malformations by 4D MRA for preoperative planning and postoperative follow-up in 56 patients: comparison with DSA and intraoperative findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1095–101 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2921 pmid:22300925

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Liberati A,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Tetzlaff J, et al

    . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:e1–34 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 pmid:19631507

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. McInnes MD,
    2. Moher D,
    3. Thombs BD, et al

    ; and the PRISMA-DTA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA 2018;319:388–96 doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19163 pmid:29362800

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Chu H,
    2. Cole SR

    . Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1331–32; author reply 2–3 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.011 pmid:17098577

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Wei JJ,
    2. Lin EX,
    3. Shi JD, et al

    . Meta-analysis with zero-event studies: a comparative study with application to COVID-19 data. Mil Med Res 2021;8:41 doi:10.1186/s40779-021-00331-6 pmid:34217371

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Chen B,
    2. Benedetti A

    . Quantifying heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis with binary outcomes. Syst Rev 2017;6:243 doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0630-4 pmid:29208048

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Dwamena B

    . MIDAS: Stata module for meta-analytical integration of diagnostic test accuracy studies. 2007; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4922515_MIDAS_Stata_module_for_meta-analytical_integration_of_diagnostic_test_accuracy_studies; Accessed March 24, 2024
18. 18.↵
    1. Nyaga VN,
    2. Arbyn M

    . Metadta: a Stata command for meta-analysis and meta-regression of diagnostic test accuracy data: a tutorial. Arch Public Health 2022;80:95 doi:10.1186/s13690-021-00747-5 pmid:35351195

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Finitsis S,
    2. Anxionnat R,
    3. Gory B, et al

    . Susceptibility-weighted angiography for the follow-up of brain arteriovenous malformations treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:792–97 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6053 pmid:31023658

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Gauvrit JY,
    2. Oppenheim C,
    3. Nataf F, et al

    . Three-dimensional dynamic magnetic resonance angiography for the evaluation of radiosurgically treated cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Eur Radiol 2006;16:583–91 doi:10.1007/s00330-005-0011-6 pmid:16220210

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Rojas-Villabona A,
    2. Pizzini FB,
    3. Solbach T, et al

    . Are dynamic arterial spin-labeling MRA and time-resolved contrast-enhanced MRA suited for confirmation of obliteration following gamma knife radiosurgery of brain arteriovenous malformations? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:671–78 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6990 pmid:33541896

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Soize S,
    2. Bouquigny F,
    3. Kadziolka K, et al

    . Value of 4D MR angiography at 3T compared with DSA for the follow-up of treated brain arteriovenous malformation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1903–09 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3982 pmid:24904052

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    1. Khandanpour N,
    2. Griffiths P,
    3. Warren D, et al

    . Prospective comparison of late 3T MRI with conventional angiography in evaluating the patency of cerebral arteriovenous malformations treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Neuroradiology 2013;55:683–87 doi:10.1007/s00234-013-1153-x pmid:23440432

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Page MJ,
    2. McKenzie JE,
    3. Bossuyt PM, et al

    . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71 doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 pmid:33782057

    FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Whiting PF,
    2. Rutjes AW,
    3. Westwood ME

    , et al; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. (1539-3704. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid:22007046

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Lee KE,
    2. Choi CG,
    3. Choi JW, et al

    . Detection of residual brain arteriovenous malformations after radiosurgery: diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional time of flight MR angiography at 3.0 Tesla. Korean J Radiol 2009;10:333–39 doi:10.3348/kjr.2009.10.4.333 pmid:19568460

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Zhuo Y,
    2. Chang J,
    3. Chen Y, et al

    . Value of contrast-enhanced MR angiography for the follow-up of treated brain arteriovenous malformations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2023;33:7139–48 doi:10.1007/s00330-023-09714-w pmid:37148354

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Azuma M,
    2. Hirai T,
    3. Shigematsu Y, et al

    . Evaluation of intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas: comparison of unenhanced 3T 3D time-of-flight MR angiography with digital subtraction angiography. Magn Reson Med 2015;14;285–93 doi:10.2463/mrms.2014-0120 pmid:25994036

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Leclerc X,
    2. Guillaud O,
    3. Reyns N, et al

    . Follow-up MRI for small brain AVMs treated by radiosurgery: is gadolinium really necessary? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:437–45 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6404 pmid:32029465

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    1. Buis DR,
    2. Bot JC,
    3. Barkhof F, et al

    . The predictive value of 3D time-of-flight MR angiography in assessment of brain arteriovenous malformation obliteration after radiosurgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:232–38 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2744 pmid:22095967

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    1. DeLano MC,
    2. DeMarco JK

    . 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MR angiography of the head and neck. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2006;16:321–41 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2006.03.002 pmid:16731370

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Schmitz BL,
    2. Aschoff AJ,
    3. Hoffmann MH, et al

    . Advantages and pitfalls in 3T MR brain imaging: a pictorial review. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2229–37 pmid:1621982

    PubMedWeb of Science
33. 33.↵
    1. Edelman RR,
    2. Koktzoglou I

    . Noncontrast MR angiography: an update. J Magn Reson Imaging . 2019;49:355–73 doi:10.1002/jmri.26288 pmid:30566270

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Yang JJ,
    2. Hill MD,
    3. Morrish WF, et al

    . Comparison of pre- and postcontrast 3D time-of-flight MR angiography for the evaluation of distal intracranial branch occlusions in acute ischemic stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:557–67 pmid:11950644

    PubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    1. Kodera T,
    2. Arai Y,
    3. Arishima H, et al

    . Evaluation of obliteration of arteriovenous malformations after stereotactic radiosurgery with arterial spin labeling MR imaging. Br J Neurosurg 2017;31:641–47 doi:10.1080/02688697.2017.1365818 pmid:28830253

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Togao O,
    2. Hiwatashi AA,
    3. Obara M, et al

    . 4D ASL-based MR angiography for visualization of distal arteries and leptomeningeal collateral vessels in moyamoya disease: a comparison of techniques. Eur Radiol 2018;28:4871–81 doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5462-7 pmid:29737389

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Iryo Y,
    2. Hirai T,
    3. Kai Y, et al

    . Intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas: evaluation with 3-T four-dimensional MR angiography using arterial spin labeling. Radiology 2014;271:193–99 doi:10.1148/radiol.13122670 pmid:24475797

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Togao O,
    2. Hiwatashi A,
    3. Yamashita K, et al

    . Acceleration-selective arterial spin labeling MR angiography for visualization of brain arteriovenous malformations. Neuroradiology 2019;61:979–89.doi:10.1007/s00234-019-02217-w pmid:31016367

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Lim HK,
    2. Choi CG,
    3. Kim SM, et al

    . Detection of residual brain arteriovenous malformations after radiosurgery: diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced four-dimensional MR angiography at 3.0 T. Br J Radiol 2012;85:1064–69 doi:10.1259/bjr/30618275 pmid:22294705

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    1. Hadizadeh DR,
    2. von Falkenhausen M,
    3. Gieseke J, et al

    . Cerebral arteriovenous malformation: Spetzler-Martin classification at subsecond-temporal-resolution four-dimensional MR angiography compared with that at DSA. Radiology 2008;246:205–13 doi:10.1148/radiol.2453061684 pmid:17951352

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Hodel JA-O,
    2. Leclerc XA-O,
    3. Kalsoum EA-O, et al

    . Intracranial arteriovenous shunting: detection with arterial spin-labeling and susceptibility-weighted imaging combined. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:71–76 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4961 pmid:27789452

    FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    1. Miyasaka T,
    2. Taoka T,
    3. Nakagawa H, et al

    . Application of susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) for evaluation of draining veins of arteriovenous malformation: utility of magnitude images. Neuroradiology 2012;54:1221–27 doi:10.1007/s00234-012-1029-5 pmid:22592320

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Shimizu K,
    2. Kosaka N,
    3. Yamamoto T, et al

    . Arterial spin labeling perfusion-weighted MRI for long-term follow-up of a cerebral arteriovenous malformation after stereotactic radiosurgery. Acta Radiology Short Rep 2014;3:2047981613510160 doi:10.1177/2047981613510160 pmid:24778796

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Lee CC,
    2. Reardon MA,
    3. Ball BZ, et al

    . The predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating intracranial arteriovenous malformation obliteration after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurosurg 2015;123:136–44 doi:10.3171/2014.10.JNS141565 pmid:25839923

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    1. Pollock BE,
    2. Kondziolka D,
    3. Flickinger JC, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging: an accurate method to evaluate arteriovenous malformations after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurosurg 1996;85:1044–49 doi:10.3171/jns.1996.85.6.1044 pmid:8929493

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
46. 46.↵
    1. Quisling RG,
    2. Peters KR,
    3. Friedman WA, et al

    . Persistent nidus blood flow in cerebral arteriovenous malformation after stereotactic radiosurgery: MR imaging assessment. Radiology 1991;180:785–91 doi:10.1148/radiology.180.3.1871294 pmid:1871294

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science