INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the non-invasive 3D pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling (PC ASL) technique with the clinically established dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI) for evaluation of brain tumours. METHODS: A prospective study of 28 patients with contrast-enhancing brain tumours was performed at 3 T using DSC-MRI and PC ASL with whole-brain coverage. The visual qualitative evaluation of signal enhancement in tumour was scored from 0 to 3 (0 = no signal enhancement compared with white matter, 3 = pronounced signal enhancement with equal or higher signal intensity than in grey matter/basal ganglia). The extent of susceptibility artefacts in the tumour was scored from 0 to 2 (0 = no susceptibility artefacts and 2 = extensive susceptibility artefacts (maximum diameter > 2 cm)). A quantitative analysis was performed with normalised tumour blood flow values (ASL nTBF, DSC nTBF): mean value for region of interest (ROI) in an area with maximum signal enhancement/the mean value for ROIs in cerebellum. RESULTS: There was no difference in total visual score for signal enhancement between PC ASL and DSC relative cerebral blood flow (p = 0.12). ASL had a lower susceptibility-artefact score than DSC-MRI (p = 0.03). There was good correlation between DSC nTBF and ASL nTBF values with a correlation coefficient of 0.82. CONCLUSION: PC ASL is an alternative to DSC-MRI for the evaluation of perfusion in brain tumours. The method has fewer susceptibility artefacts than DSC-MRI and can be used in patients with renal failure because no contrast injection is needed.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the non-invasive 3D pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling (PC ASL) technique with the clinically established dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI) for evaluation of brain tumours. METHODS: A prospective study of 28 patients with contrast-enhancing brain tumours was performed at 3 T using DSC-MRI and PC ASL with whole-brain coverage. The visual qualitative evaluation of signal enhancement in tumour was scored from 0 to 3 (0 = no signal enhancement compared with white matter, 3 = pronounced signal enhancement with equal or higher signal intensity than in grey matter/basal ganglia). The extent of susceptibility artefacts in the tumour was scored from 0 to 2 (0 = no susceptibility artefacts and 2 = extensive susceptibility artefacts (maximum diameter > 2 cm)). A quantitative analysis was performed with normalised tumour blood flow values (ASL nTBF, DSC nTBF): mean value for region of interest (ROI) in an area with maximum signal enhancement/the mean value for ROIs in cerebellum. RESULTS: There was no difference in total visual score for signal enhancement between PC ASL and DSC relative cerebral blood flow (p = 0.12). ASL had a lower susceptibility-artefact score than DSC-MRI (p = 0.03). There was good correlation between DSC nTBF and ASL nTBF values with a correlation coefficient of 0.82. CONCLUSION: PC ASL is an alternative to DSC-MRI for the evaluation of perfusion in brain tumours. The method has fewer susceptibility artefacts than DSC-MRI and can be used in patients with renal failure because no contrast injection is needed.
Authors: Marc-André Weber; Matthias Günther; Matthias P Lichy; Stefan Delorme; André Bongers; Christoph Thilmann; Marco Essig; Ivan Zuna; Lothar R Schad; Jürgen Debus; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Jiongjiong Wang; David C Alsop; Lin Li; John Listerud; Julio B Gonzalez-At; Mitchell D Schnall; John A Detre Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: F Q Ye; K F Berman; T Ellmore; G Esposito; J D van Horn; Y Yang; J Duyn; A M Smith; J A Frank; D R Weinberger; A C McLaughlin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.668
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 Lai; A Mahadevan; D Hackney; P C Warnke; F Nigim; E Kasper; E T Wong; B S Carter; C C Chen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Belinda S Lennerz; David C Alsop; Laura M Holsen; Emily Stern; Rafael Rojas; Cara B Ebbeling; Jill M Goldstein; David S Ludwig Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 7.045