BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: DAVFs and small AVMs are difficult to detect on conventional MR imaging/MRA or CTA examinations and often require DSA for definitive diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of venous signal intensity on ASL imaging for making this diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two neuroradiologists and 1 neurologist reviewed MR imaging studies in 26 patients, 15 of whom had DSA-proved DAVFs or small (<2 cm) AVMs. Pseudocontinuous ASL was performed at 1.5T with background-suppressed 3D-FSE readout. Using a 5-point scale, these readers assessed the likelihood of positive findings on a DSA study before and after reviewing the ASL findings. Agreement on imaging findings, including venous ASL signal intensity, was performed by using κ statistics. Logistic regression and ROC analysis were performed to determine which imaging findings improved diagnosis. RESULTS: Venous ASL signal intensity was seen frequently in cases with positive findings on DSA. The sensitivity and specificity of venous ASL signal intensity for predicting positive findings on a DSA study were 78% and 85%, respectively. On ROC analysis, there was a significant increase in the AUC after review of the ASL images (AUC = 0.798 pre-ASL, AUC = 0.891 post-ASL; P = .02). Multivariate regression identified venous ASL signal intensity as the strongest predictor of positive findings on a DSA study, with an odds ratio of 17.3 (95% CI, 3.3-90.4). CONCLUSIONS: Identifying venous ASL signal intensity improved detection of DAVFs and small AVMs. Attention to this finding may improve triage to DSA in patients with suspected small vascular malformations.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: DAVFs and small AVMs are difficult to detect on conventional MR imaging/MRA or CTA examinations and often require DSA for definitive diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of venous signal intensity on ASL imaging for making this diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two neuroradiologists and 1 neurologist reviewed MR imaging studies in 26 patients, 15 of whom had DSA-proved DAVFs or small (<2 cm) AVMs. Pseudocontinuous ASL was performed at 1.5T with background-suppressed 3D-FSE readout. Using a 5-point scale, these readers assessed the likelihood of positive findings on a DSA study before and after reviewing the ASL findings. Agreement on imaging findings, including venous ASL signal intensity, was performed by using κ statistics. Logistic regression and ROC analysis were performed to determine which imaging findings improved diagnosis. RESULTS:Venous ASL signal intensity was seen frequently in cases with positive findings on DSA. The sensitivity and specificity of venous ASL signal intensity for predicting positive findings on a DSA study were 78% and 85%, respectively. On ROC analysis, there was a significant increase in the AUC after review of the ASL images (AUC = 0.798 pre-ASL, AUC = 0.891 post-ASL; P = .02). Multivariate regression identified venous ASL signal intensity as the strongest predictor of positive findings on a DSA study, with an odds ratio of 17.3 (95% CI, 3.3-90.4). CONCLUSIONS: Identifying venous ASL signal intensity improved detection of DAVFs and small AVMs. Attention to this finding may improve triage to DSA in patients with suspected small vascular malformations.
Authors: K Noguchi; N Kuwayama; M Kubo; Y Kamisaki; K Kameda; G Tomizawa; H Kawabe; H Seto Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Nishimura; T Hirai; A Sasao; M Kitajima; M Morioka; Y Kai; Y Omori; T Okuda; R Murakami; H Fukuoka; K Awai; J-I Kuratsu; Y Yamashita Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Dariusch R Hadizadeh; Marcus von Falkenhausen; Jürgen Gieseke; Bernhard Meyer; Horst Urbach; Romhild Hoogeveen; Hans H Schild; Winfried A Willinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-10-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Guido M Kukuk; Dariusch R Hadizadeh; Azize Boström; Jürgen Gieseke; Julia Bergener; Michael Nelles; Petra Mürtz; Horst Urbach; Hans H Schild; Winfried A Willinek Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Christian A Taschner; Jürgen Gieseke; Vianney Le Thuc; Henda Rachdi; Nicolas Reyns; Jean-Yves Gauvrit; Xavier Leclerc Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Leonard Sunwoo; Chul-Ho Sohn; Jong Young Lee; Kyung Sik Yi; Tae Jin Yun; Seung Hong Choi; Young Dae Cho; Ji-Hoon Kim; Sun-Won Park; Moon Hee Han; Sun Ha Paek; Yong Hwy Kim; Jin Wook Kim; Hyun-Tai Chung; Dong Gyu Kim Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: X Leclerc; O Guillaud; N Reyns; J Hodel; O Outteryck; F Bala; N Bricout; M Bretzner; N Ramdane; J-P Pruvo; L Hacein-Bey; G Kuchcinski Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S A Amukotuwa; M P Marks; G Zaharchuk; F Calamante; R Bammer; N Fischbein Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Manus J Donahue; Eric Achten; Petrice M Cogswell; Frank-Erik De Leeuw; Colin P Derdeyn; Rick M Dijkhuizen; Audrey P Fan; Rashid Ghaznawi; Jeremy J Heit; M Arfan Ikram; Peter Jezzard; Lori C Jordan; Eric Jouvent; Linda Knutsson; Richard Leigh; David S Liebeskind; Weili Lin; Thomas W Okell; Adnan I Qureshi; Charlotte J Stagg; Matthias Jp van Osch; Peter Cm van Zijl; Jennifer M Watchmaker; Max Wintermark; Ona Wu; Greg Zaharchuk; Jinyuan Zhou; Jeroen Hendrikse Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Tilman Schubert; Zachary Clark; Carolina Sandoval-Garcia; Ryan Zea; Oliver Wieben; Huimin Wu; Patrick A Turski; Kevin M Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 6.016