PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging has been helpful in characterizing intracranial mass lesions by providing information on vascularity. Tumefactive demyelinating lesions (TDLs) can mimic intracranial neoplasms on conventional MR images, can be difficult to diagnose, and often result in surgical biopsy for suspected tumor. The purpose of this study was to determine whether dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging can be used to distinguish between TDLs and intracranial neoplasms that share common features on conventional MR images. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the conventional and dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR images and medical records of 10 patients with tumefactive demyelinating disease that was diagnosed by either biopsy or strong clinical suspicion supported by laboratory evaluation that included CSF analysis and evoked potential tests. Twelve TDLs in 10 patients and 11 brain tumors that appeared similar on conventional MR images were studied. Relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) was calculated from dynamic MR data and was expressed as a ratio to contralateral normal white matter. rCBV values from 11 patients with intracranial neoplasms with very similar conventional MR imaging features were used for comparison. RESULTS: The rCBV values of TDLs ranged from 0.22 to 1.79 (n = 12), with a mean of 0.88 +/- 0.46 (SD). The rCBV values of intracranial neoplasms ranged from 1.55 to 19.20 (n = 11), with a mean of 6.47 +/- 6.52. The difference in rCBV values between the two groups was statistically significant (P =.009). The difference in rCBV values between TDLs and primary cerebral lymphomas (n = 4) was less pronounced but was statistically significant (P =.005). CONCLUSION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging is a useful diagnostic tool in differentiating TDLs from intracranial neoplasms and may therefore obviate unnecessary surgical biopsy.
PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging has been helpful in characterizing intracranial mass lesions by providing information on vascularity. Tumefactive demyelinating lesions (TDLs) can mimic intracranial neoplasms on conventional MR images, can be difficult to diagnose, and often result in surgical biopsy for suspected tumor. The purpose of this study was to determine whether dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging can be used to distinguish between TDLs and intracranial neoplasms that share common features on conventional MR images. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the conventional and dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR images and medical records of 10 patients with tumefactive demyelinating disease that was diagnosed by either biopsy or strong clinical suspicion supported by laboratory evaluation that included CSF analysis and evoked potential tests. Twelve TDLs in 10 patients and 11 brain tumors that appeared similar on conventional MR images were studied. Relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) was calculated from dynamic MR data and was expressed as a ratio to contralateral normal white matter. rCBV values from 11 patients with intracranial neoplasms with very similar conventional MR imaging features were used for comparison. RESULTS: The rCBV values of TDLs ranged from 0.22 to 1.79 (n = 12), with a mean of 0.88 +/- 0.46 (SD). The rCBV values of intracranial neoplasms ranged from 1.55 to 19.20 (n = 11), with a mean of 6.47 +/- 6.52. The difference in rCBV values between the two groups was statistically significant (P =.009). The difference in rCBV values between TDLs and primary cerebral lymphomas (n = 4) was less pronounced but was statistically significant (P =.005). CONCLUSION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging is a useful diagnostic tool in differentiating TDLs from intracranial neoplasms and may therefore obviate unnecessary surgical biopsy.
Authors: I L Tan; R A van Schijndel; P J Pouwels; M A van Walderveen; J R Reichenbach; R A Manoliu; F Barkhof Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: F G Barker; S M Chang; S L Huhn; R L Davis; P H Gutin; M W McDermott; C B Wilson; M D Prados Journal: Cancer Date: 1997-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: N Kurihara; S Takahashi; A Furuta; S Higano; K Matsumoto; M Tobita; H Konno; K Sakamoto Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 1996 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.605
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: Matteo Paoletti; Shaun Ivan Muzic; Francesca Marchetti; Lisa Maria Farina; Stefano Bastianello; Anna Pichiecchio Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: M Essig; N Anzalone; S E Combs; À Dörfler; S-K Lee; P Picozzi; A Rovira; M Weller; M Law Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Amit M Saindane; Soonmee Cha; Meng Law; Xiaonan Xue; Edmond A Knopp; David Zagzag Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Rajan Jain; Shehanaz Ellika; Norman L Lehman; Lisa Scarpace; Lonni R Schultz; Jack P Rock; Mark Rosenblum; Tom Mikkelsen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 4.130