INTRODUCTION: Conventional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has limited capacity to differentiate between glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and metastasis. The purposes of this study were: (1) to compare microvascular leakage (MVL), cerebral blood volume (CBV), and blood flow (CBF) in the distinction of metastasis from GBM using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging (DSC-MRI), and (2) to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of perfusion and permeability MR imaging. METHODS: A prospective study of 61 patients (40 GBMs and 21 metastases) was performed at 3 T using DSC-MRI. Normalized rCBV and rCBF from tumoral (rCBVt, rCBFt), peri-enhancing region (rCBVe, rCBFe), and by dividing the value in the tumor by the value in the peri-enhancing region (rCBVt/e, rCBFt/e), as well as MVL were calculated. Hemodynamic and histopathologic variables were analyzed statistically and Spearman/Pearson correlations. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed for each of the variables. RESULTS: The rCBVe, rCBFe, and MVL were significantly greater in GBMs compared with those of metastases. The optimal cutoff value for differentiating GBM from metastasis was 0.80 which implies a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 92%, a positive predictive value of 86%, and a negative predictive value of 97% for rCBVe ratio. We found a modest correlation between rCBVt and rCBFt ratios. CONCLUSION: MVL measurements in GBMs are significantly higher than those in metastases. Statistically, both rCBVe, rCBVt/e and rCBFe, rCBFt/e were useful in differentiating between GBMs and metastases, supporting the hypothesis that perfusion MR imaging can detect infiltration of tumor cells in the peri-enhancing region.
INTRODUCTION: Conventional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has limited capacity to differentiate between glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and metastasis. The purposes of this study were: (1) to compare microvascular leakage (MVL), cerebral blood volume (CBV), and blood flow (CBF) in the distinction of metastasis from GBM using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging (DSC-MRI), and (2) to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of perfusion and permeability MR imaging. METHODS: A prospective study of 61 patients (40 GBMs and 21 metastases) was performed at 3 T using DSC-MRI. Normalized rCBV and rCBF from tumoral (rCBVt, rCBFt), peri-enhancing region (rCBVe, rCBFe), and by dividing the value in the tumor by the value in the peri-enhancing region (rCBVt/e, rCBFt/e), as well as MVL were calculated. Hemodynamic and histopathologic variables were analyzed statistically and Spearman/Pearson correlations. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed for each of the variables. RESULTS: The rCBVe, rCBFe, and MVL were significantly greater in GBMs compared with those of metastases. The optimal cutoff value for differentiating GBM from metastasis was 0.80 which implies a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 92%, a positive predictive value of 86%, and a negative predictive value of 97% for rCBVe ratio. We found a modest correlation between rCBVt and rCBFt ratios. CONCLUSION: MVL measurements in GBMs are significantly higher than those in metastases. Statistically, both rCBVe, rCBVt/e and rCBFe, rCBFt/e were useful in differentiating between GBMs and metastases, supporting the hypothesis that perfusion MR imaging can detect infiltration of tumor cells in the peri-enhancing region.
Authors: Paul Kleihues; David N Louis; Bernd W Scheithauer; Lucy B Rorke; Guido Reifenberger; Peter C Burger; Webster K Cavenee Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Zaver M Bhujwalla; Dmitri Artemov; Kshama Natarajan; Meiyappan Solaiyappan; Peggy Kollars; Paul E G Kristjansen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: X Li; D Wang; S Liao; L Guo; X Xiao; X Liu; Y Xu; J Hua; J J Pillai; Y Wu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Gaudino; G M Di Lella; R Russo; V S Lo Russo; F Piludu; F R Quaglio; M R Gualano; C De Waure; C Colosimo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 3.469
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: Salma E El-Habashy; Alaa M Nazief; Chris E Adkins; Ming Ming Wen; Amal H El-Kamel; Ahmed M Hamdan; Amira S Hanafy; Tori O Terrell; Afroz S Mohammad; Paul R Lockman; Mohamed Ismail Nounou Journal: Pharm Pat Anal Date: 2014-05