BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging may be used to quantify tissue fractional blood volume (fBV) and microvascular permeability. We tested this technique in patients with brain tumors to assess whether these measurements correlate with tumor histologic grade. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with newly diagnosed gliomas underwent MR imaging followed by surgery. Imaging consisted of one pre- and six dynamic postcontrast 3D spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state data sets after administration of a single dose (0.1 mmol/kg) of contrast material. Signal intensity changes in blood and tissue were kinetically analyzed using a bidirectional two-compartment model, yielding estimates of fBV (mL/cm3) and microvascular permeability (mL/100 cm3 per minute). Stained tumor specimens were scored on a four-point scale (1 = low grade, 4 = high grade). RESULTS: Histologic examination revealed one grade 1, eight grade 2, seven grade 3, and six grade 4 tumors. fBV values ranged from 0.5% to 13.7%. Permeability values ranged from -0.4 to 18.8, with a strong correlation (r = 0.83) to tumor grade. Despite some overlap between the permeability values of specific tumors from different grades, differences in the mean were statistically significant. There was a weak correlation (r = 0.39) between estimated fBV and tumor grade, and no statistically significant difference among fBV values in any of the groups. CONCLUSION: This relatively simple method of analysis provides quantitative estimates of fBV and microvascular permeability in human brain tumors, with the permeability being predictive of pathologic grade. The technique can be easily implemented on clinical scanners and may prove useful in the assessment of tumor biology and in therapeutic trials.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging may be used to quantify tissue fractional blood volume (fBV) and microvascular permeability. We tested this technique in patients with brain tumors to assess whether these measurements correlate with tumor histologic grade. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with newly diagnosed gliomas underwent MR imaging followed by surgery. Imaging consisted of one pre- and six dynamic postcontrast 3D spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state data sets after administration of a single dose (0.1 mmol/kg) of contrast material. Signal intensity changes in blood and tissue were kinetically analyzed using a bidirectional two-compartment model, yielding estimates of fBV (mL/cm3) and microvascular permeability (mL/100 cm3 per minute). Stained tumor specimens were scored on a four-point scale (1 = low grade, 4 = high grade). RESULTS: Histologic examination revealed one grade 1, eight grade 2, seven grade 3, and six grade 4 tumors. fBV values ranged from 0.5% to 13.7%. Permeability values ranged from -0.4 to 18.8, with a strong correlation (r = 0.83) to tumor grade. Despite some overlap between the permeability values of specific tumors from different grades, differences in the mean were statistically significant. There was a weak correlation (r = 0.39) between estimated fBV and tumor grade, and no statistically significant difference among fBV values in any of the groups. CONCLUSION: This relatively simple method of analysis provides quantitative estimates of fBV and microvascular permeability in human brain tumors, with the permeability being predictive of pathologic grade. The technique can be easily implemented on clinical scanners and may prove useful in the assessment of tumor biology and in therapeutic trials.
Authors: R Brasch; C Pham; D Shames; T Roberts; K van Dijke; N van Bruggen; J Mann; S Ostrowitzki; O Melnyk Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1997 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: H C Roberts; M Saeed; T P Roberts; A Mühler; D M Shames; J S Mann; M Stiskal; F Demsar; R C Brasch Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1997 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: F Demsar; T P Roberts; H C Schwickert; D M Shames; C F van Dijke; J S Mann; M Saeed; R C Brasch Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: E T Wong; E F Jackson; K R Hess; D F Schomer; J D Hazle; A P Kyritsis; K A Jaeckle; W K Yung; V A Levin; N E Leeds Journal: Neurology Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: D Kahn; K A Follett; D L Bushnell; M A Nathan; J G Piper; M Madsen; P T Kirchner Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J Kucharczyk; Z S Vexler; T P Roberts; H S Asgari; J Mintorovitch; N Derugin; A D Watson; M E Moseley Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Uematsu; M Maeda; N Sadato; T Matsuda; Y Ishimori; Y Koshimoto; H Kimura; H Yamada; Y Kawamura; Y Yonekura; H Itoh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2001 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Meng Law; Khuram Kazmi; Stephan Wetzel; Edwin Wang; Codrin Iacob; David Zagzag; John G Golfinos; Glyn Johnson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Carlos Leiva-Salinas; James M Provenzale; Kohsuke Kudo; Makoto Sasaki; Max Wintermark Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: R Jain; J Gutierrez; J Narang; L Scarpace; L R Schultz; N Lemke; S C Patel; T Mikkelsen; J P Rock Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 3.825