Literature DB >> 17032878

Comparing perfusion metrics obtained from a single compartment versus pharmacokinetic modeling methods using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with glioma grade.

M Law1, R Young, J Babb, M Rad, T Sasaki, D Zagzag, G Johnson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Numerous different parameters measured by perfusion MR imaging can be used for characterizing gliomas. Parameters derived from 3 different analyses were correlated with histopathologically confirmed grade in gliomas to determine which parameters best predict tumor grade.
METHODS: Seventy-four patients with gliomas underwent dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging (DSC MR imaging). Data were analyzed by 3 different algorithms. Analysis 1 estimated relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) by using a single compartment model. Analysis 2 estimated fractional plasma volume (V(p)) and vascular transfer constant (K(trans)) by using a 2-compartment pharmacokinetic model. Analysis 3 estimated absolute cerebral blood flow (CBF), cerebral blood volume (CBV), and mean transit time (MTT) by using a single compartment model and an automated arterial input function. The Mann-Whitney U test was used make pairwise comparisons. Binary logistic regression was used to assess whether rCBV, V(p), K(trans), CBV, CBF, and MTT can discriminate high- from low-grade tumors.
RESULTS: rCBV was the best discriminator of tumor grade ype, followed by CBF, CBV, and K(trans). Spearman rank correlation factors were the following: rCBV = 0.812 (P < .0001), CBF = 0.677 (P < .0001), CBV = 0.604 (P < .0001), K(trans) = 0.457 (P < .0001), V(p) = 0.301 (P =.009), and MTT = 0.089 (P = .448). rCBV was the best single predictor, and K(trans) with rCBV was the best set of predictors of high-grade glioma.
CONCLUSION: rCBV, CBF, CBV K(trans), and V(p) measurements correlated well with histopathologic grade. rCBV was the best predictor of glioma grade, and the combination of rCBV with K(trans) was the best set of metrics to predict glioma grade.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17032878      PMCID: PMC7977890     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  39 in total

Review 1.  Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging.

Authors:  Soonmee Cha; Edmond A Knopp; Glyn Johnson; Stephan G Wetzel; Andrew W Litt; David Zagzag
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Automatic calculation of the arterial input function for cerebral perfusion imaging with MR imaging.

Authors:  Timothy J Carroll; Howard A Rowley; Victor M Haughton
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-03-27       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Simultaneous mapping of blood volume and endothelial permeability surface area product in gliomas using iterative analysis of first-pass dynamic contrast enhanced MRI data.

Authors:  K L Li; X P Zhu; D R Checkley; J J L Tessier; V F Hillier; J C Waterton; A Jackson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts.

Authors:  P S Tofts; A G Kermode
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 5.  Malignant astrocytic neoplasms: classification, pathologic anatomy, and response to treatment.

Authors:  P C Burger
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 4.929

Review 6.  Oligodendroglioma: pathology and molecular biology.

Authors:  Herbert H Engelhard; Ana Stelea; Elizabeth J Cochran
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  2002-08

7.  Differentiation of low-grade oligodendrogliomas from low-grade astrocytomas by using quantitative blood-volume measurements derived from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Soonmee Cha; Tarik Tihan; Forrest Crawford; Nancy J Fischbein; Susan Chang; Andrew Bollen; Sarah J Nelson; Michael Prados; Mitchel S Berger; William P Dillon
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  Correlation between dynamic MRI and outcome in patients with malignant gliomas.

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

9.  Quantitative measurement of microvascular permeability in human brain tumors achieved using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histologic grade.

Authors:  H C Roberts; T P Roberts; R C Brasch; W P Dillon
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.966

10.  Measuring blood volume and vascular transfer constant from dynamic, T(2)*-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Glyn Johnson; Stephan G Wetzel; Soonmee Cha; James Babb; Paul S Tofts
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.668

View more
  33 in total

1.  Comparative study of pulsed-continuous arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging by histogram analysis in evaluation of glial tumors.

Authors:  Atsuko Arisawa; Yoshiyuki Watanabe; Hisashi Tanaka; Hiroto Takahashi; Chisato Matsuo; Takuya Fujiwara; Masahiro Fujiwara; Yasunori Fujimoto; Noriyuki Tomiyama
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2018-04-29       Impact factor: 2.804

2.  A fully automated method for quantitative cerebral hemodynamic analysis using DSC-MRI.

Authors:  Atle Bjørnerud; Kyrre E Emblem
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 6.200

Review 3.  Neuroimaging in neuro-oncology.

Authors:  Soonmee Cha
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 7.620

4.  [Towards more precision in the therapy of brain tumors. Possibilities and limits of MRI].

Authors:  A Radbruch; E Hattingen
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.214

5.  Exploratory evaluation of MR permeability with 18F-FDG PET mapping in pediatric brain tumors: a report from the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium.

Authors:  Katherine A Zukotynski; Frederic H Fahey; Sridhar Vajapeyam; Sarah S Ng; Mehmet Kocak; Sridharan Gururangan; Larry E Kun; Tina Y Poussaint
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Prognostic value of blood flow estimated by arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging in high-grade gliomas.

Authors:  Mandy Kim Rau; Christian Braun; Marco Skardelly; Jens Schittenhelm; Frank Paulsen; Benjamin Bender; Ulrike Ernemann; Sotirios Bisdas
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 7.  Imaging biomarkers of angiogenesis and the microvascular environment in cerebral tumours.

Authors:  G Thompson; S J Mills; D J Coope; J P B O'Connor; A Jackson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Multimodal MR imaging model to predict tumor infiltration in patients with gliomas.

Authors:  Christopher R Durst; Prashant Raghavan; Mark E Shaffrey; David Schiff; M Beatriz Lopes; Jason P Sheehan; Nicholas J Tustison; James T Patrie; Wenjun Xin; W Jeff Elias; Kenneth C Liu; Greg A Helm; A Cupino; Max Wintermark
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2013-12-15       Impact factor: 2.804

9.  Survival analysis in patients with newly diagnosed primary glioblastoma multiforme using pre- and post-treatment peritumoral perfusion imaging parameters.

Authors:  Asim K Bag; Phillip C Cezayirli; Jake J Davenport; Santhosh Gaddikeri; Hassan M Fathallah-Shaykh; Alan Cantor; Xiaosi S Han; Louis B Nabors
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 4.130

10.  High- and low-grade glioma differentiation: the role of percentage signal recovery evaluation in MR dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging.

Authors:  Italo Aprile; Giorgia Giovannelli; Paola Fiaschini; Marco Muti; Anna Kouleridou; Nevia Caputo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.