PURPOSE: We evaluated dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI) using gadoteridol in comparison to the iron oxide nanoparticle blood pool agent, ferumoxytol, in patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) who received standard radiochemotherapy (RCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen patients with GBM received standard RCT and underwent 19 MRI sessions that included DSC-MRI acquisitions with gadoteridol on Day 1 and ferumoxytol on Day 2. Relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) values were calculated from DSC data obtained from each contrast agent. T1-weighted acquisition post-gadoteridol administration was used to identify enhancing regions. RESULTS: In seven MRI sessions of clinically presumptive active tumor, gadoteridol-DSC showed low rCBV in three and high rCBV in four, whereas ferumoxytol-DSC showed high rCBV in all seven sessions (p = 0.002). After RCT, seven MRI sessions showed increased gadoteridol contrast enhancement on T1-weighted scans coupled with low rCBV without significant differences between contrast agents (p = 0.9). Based on post-gadoteridol T1-weighted scans, DSC-MRI, and clinical presentation, four patterns of response to RCT were observed: regression, pseudoprogression, true progression, and mixed response. CONCLUSION: We conclude that DSC-MRI with a blood pool agent such as ferumoxytol may provide a better monitor of tumor rCBV than DSC-MRI with gadoteridol. Lesions demonstrating increased enhancement on T1-weighted MRI coupled with low ferumoxytol rCBV are likely exhibiting pseudoprogression, whereas high rCBV with ferumoxytol is a better marker than gadoteridol for determining active tumor. These interesting pilot observations suggest that ferumoxytol may differentiate tumor progression from pseudoprogression and warrant further investigation. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: We evaluated dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI) using gadoteridol in comparison to the iron oxide nanoparticle blood pool agent, ferumoxytol, in patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) who received standard radiochemotherapy (RCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen patients with GBM received standard RCT and underwent 19 MRI sessions that included DSC-MRI acquisitions with gadoteridol on Day 1 and ferumoxytol on Day 2. Relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) values were calculated from DSC data obtained from each contrast agent. T1-weighted acquisition post-gadoteridol administration was used to identify enhancing regions. RESULTS: In seven MRI sessions of clinically presumptive active tumor, gadoteridol-DSC showed low rCBV in three and high rCBV in four, whereas ferumoxytol-DSC showed high rCBV in all seven sessions (p = 0.002). After RCT, seven MRI sessions showed increased gadoteridol contrast enhancement on T1-weighted scans coupled with low rCBV without significant differences between contrast agents (p = 0.9). Based on post-gadoteridol T1-weighted scans, DSC-MRI, and clinical presentation, four patterns of response to RCT were observed: regression, pseudoprogression, true progression, and mixed response. CONCLUSION: We conclude that DSC-MRI with a blood pool agent such as ferumoxytol may provide a better monitor of tumorrCBV than DSC-MRI with gadoteridol. Lesions demonstrating increased enhancement on T1-weighted MRI coupled with low ferumoxytolrCBV are likely exhibiting pseudoprogression, whereas high rCBV with ferumoxytol is a better marker than gadoteridol for determining active tumor. These interesting pilot observations suggest that ferumoxytol may differentiate tumor progression from pseudoprogression and warrant further investigation. Copyright Â
Authors: Jason S Weinstein; Csanad G Varallyay; Edit Dosa; Seymur Gahramanov; Bronwyn Hamilton; William D Rooney; Leslie L Muldoon; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 6.200
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: Joonmi Oh; Roland G Henry; Andrea Pirzkall; Ying Lu; Xiaojuan Li; Isabelle Catalaa; Susan Chang; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.813
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: H J Aronen; I E Gazit; D N Louis; B R Buchbinder; F S Pardo; R M Weisskoff; G R Harsh; G R Cosgrove; E F Halpern; F H Hochberg Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Csanad G Varallyay; Eric Nesbit; Andrea Horvath; Peter Varallyay; Rongwei Fu; Seymur Gahramanov; Leslie L Muldoon; Xin Li; William D Rooney; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jill Fredrickson; Natalie J Serkova; Shelby K Wyatt; Richard A D Carano; Andrea Pirzkall; Ina Rhee; Lee S Rosen; Alberto Bessudo; Colin Weekes; Alex de Crespigny Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Adrienne N Dula; C Chad Quarles; Ashley M Stokes; Jared A Weis; Jennifer G Whisenant; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Igor Zhukov; Jason M Williams; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.266