PURPOSE: The goal of the present study was to determine the utility of continuous arterial spin labeling (CASL) for characterization of meningioma by MR perfusion imaging and to compare these results with those obtained from the T2 dynamic susceptibility contrast (T2DSC) method and from histopathologic examination. METHODS: Twenty-one cases of meningiomas were examined at 1.5T. CASL perfusion imaging was implemented on the basis of multisection single-shot echo-planar imaging with velocity-driven adiabatic spin-inversion preparation. T2DSC perfusion imaging was also performed by using a double-echo spoiled gradient echo sequence in a section containing the tumor. By focusing on the regions of interest, maps of % signal intensity change and cerebral blood flow (CBF) were determined from CASL and cerebral blood volume (CBV). CBF and mean transit time (MTT) were obtained from T2DSC. The microvessel area (MVA) was determined from specimens immunostained with anti-CD31 in 14 cases by measuring the total amount of staining in each histologic section. Linear regression analysis was performed for rCBF values from both perfusion methods and for % signal intensity change and MVA. RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between CBF values determined from both perfusion methods (r(2) = 0.73; P < .001); however, the slope from T2DSC to CASL was less than unity, likely because of the different vascular weighting used for each method. There was also a significant correlation between CASL-% signal intensity change and MVA determined by histopathology (r(2) = 0.91; P < .00001). Perfusion values were the greatest for angiomatous meningioma and lowest for fibrous meningioma when using either perfusion method. CONCLUSIONS: CASL and T2DSC perfusion methods are comparable in the characterization of meningiomas. Further, CASL is of use in assessing tumor microcirculation.
PURPOSE: The goal of the present study was to determine the utility of continuous arterial spin labeling (CASL) for characterization of meningioma by MR perfusion imaging and to compare these results with those obtained from the T2 dynamic susceptibility contrast (T2DSC) method and from histopathologic examination. METHODS: Twenty-one cases of meningiomas were examined at 1.5T. CASL perfusion imaging was implemented on the basis of multisection single-shot echo-planar imaging with velocity-driven adiabatic spin-inversion preparation. T2DSC perfusion imaging was also performed by using a double-echo spoiled gradient echo sequence in a section containing the tumor. By focusing on the regions of interest, maps of % signal intensity change and cerebral blood flow (CBF) were determined from CASL and cerebral blood volume (CBV). CBF and mean transit time (MTT) were obtained from T2DSC. The microvessel area (MVA) was determined from specimens immunostained with anti-CD31 in 14 cases by measuring the total amount of staining in each histologic section. Linear regression analysis was performed for rCBF values from both perfusion methods and for % signal intensity change and MVA. RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between CBF values determined from both perfusion methods (r(2) = 0.73; P < .001); however, the slope from T2DSC to CASL was less than unity, likely because of the different vascular weighting used for each method. There was also a significant correlation between CASL-% signal intensity change and MVA determined by histopathology (r(2) = 0.91; P < .00001). Perfusion values were the greatest for angiomatous meningioma and lowest for fibrous meningioma when using either perfusion method. CONCLUSIONS: CASL and T2DSC perfusion methods are comparable in the characterization of meningiomas. Further, CASL is of use in assessing tumor microcirculation.
Authors: M Fuss; F Wenz; M Essig; M Muenter; J Debus; T S Herman; M Wannenmacher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marc-André Weber; Christoph Thilmann; Matthias P Lichy; Matthias Günther; Stefan Delorme; Ivan Zuna; André Bongers; Lothar R Schad; Jürgen Debus; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Marco Essig; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: G J Harris; R F Lewis; A Satlin; C D English; T M Scott; D A Yurgelun-Todd; P F Renshaw Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ying-Kiat Zee; James P B O'Connor; Geoff J M Parker; Alan Jackson; Andrew R Clamp; M Ben Taylor; Noel W Clarke; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Raymond Y Huang; Wenya Linda Bi; Brent Griffith; Timothy J Kaufmann; Christian la Fougère; Nils Ole Schmidt; Jöerg C Tonn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Patrick Y Wen; Kenneth Aldape; Farshad Nassiri; Gelareh Zadeh; Ian F Dunn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: H Fudaba; T Shimomura; T Abe; H Matsuta; Y Momii; K Sugita; H Ooba; T Kamida; T Hikawa; M Fujiki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 3.825