BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and single brain metastasis (MET) are the 2 most common malignant brain tumors that can appear similar on anatomic imaging but require vastly different treatment strategy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether the peak height and the percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced (DSC) perfusion MR imaging could differentiate GBM and MET. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients with histopathologic diagnosis of GBM (n=27) or MET (n=16) underwent DSC perfusion MR imaging in addition to anatomic MR imaging before surgery. Regions of interest were drawn around the nonenhancing peritumoral T2 lesion (PTL) and the contrast-enhancing lesion (CEL). T2* signal intensity-time curves acquired during the first pass of gadolinium contrast material were converted to the changes in relaxation rate to yield T2* relaxivity (Delta R2*) curve. The peak height of maximal signal intensity drop and the percentage of signal intensity recovery at the end of first pass were measured for each voxel in the PTL and CEL regions of the tumor. RESULTS: The average peak height for the PTL was significantly higher (P=.04) in GBM than in MET. The average percentage of signal intensity recovery was significantly reduced in PTL (78.4% versus 82.8%; P=.02) and in CEL (62.5% versus 80.9%, P<.01) regions of MET compared with those regions in the GBM group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study show that the peak height and the percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from the Delta R2* curve of DSC perfusion MR imaging can differentiate GBM and MET.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and single brain metastasis (MET) are the 2 most common malignant brain tumors that can appear similar on anatomic imaging but require vastly different treatment strategy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether the peak height and the percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced (DSC) perfusion MR imaging could differentiate GBM and MET. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients with histopathologic diagnosis of GBM (n=27) or MET (n=16) underwent DSC perfusion MR imaging in addition to anatomic MR imaging before surgery. Regions of interest were drawn around the nonenhancing peritumoral T2 lesion (PTL) and the contrast-enhancing lesion (CEL). T2* signal intensity-time curves acquired during the first pass of gadolinium contrast material were converted to the changes in relaxation rate to yield T2* relaxivity (Delta R2*) curve. The peak height of maximal signal intensity drop and the percentage of signal intensity recovery at the end of first pass were measured for each voxel in the PTL and CEL regions of the tumor. RESULTS: The average peak height for the PTL was significantly higher (P=.04) in GBM than in MET. The average percentage of signal intensity recovery was significantly reduced in PTL (78.4% versus 82.8%; P=.02) and in CEL (62.5% versus 80.9%, P<.01) regions of MET compared with those regions in the GBM group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study show that the peak height and the percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from the Delta R2* curve of DSC perfusion MR imaging can differentiate GBM and MET.
Authors: Michael H Lev; Yelda Ozsunar; John W Henson; Amjad A Rasheed; Glenn D Barest; Griffith R Harsh; Markus M Fitzek; E Antonio Chiocca; James D Rabinov; Andrew N Csavoy; Bruce R Rosen; Fred H Hochberg; Pamela W Schaefer; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; T Hirai; T Okuda; Y Shigematsu; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: L Danieli; G C Riccitelli; D Distefano; E Prodi; E Ventura; A Cianfoni; A Kaelin-Lang; M Reinert; E Pravatà Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 3.825
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
Authors: Sumei Wang; Sungheon Kim; Sanjeev Chawla; Ronald L Wolf; Wei-Guo Zhang; Donald M O'Rourke; Kevin D Judy; Elias R Melhem; Harish Poptani Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Suja Saraswathy; Forrest W Crawford; Kathleen R Lamborn; Andrea Pirzkall; Susan Chang; Soonmee Cha; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 4.130