BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Contrast extravasation in DSC-MRI potentiates inaccurate and imprecise estimates of glioma rCBV. We tested assertions that preload and postprocessing algorithms minimize this error by comparing Gd-rCBV using permutations of these 2 techniques with criterion standard rCBV using MION, an intravascular agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We imaged 7 Fisher rats with 9L gliosarcomas, by using 3T gradient-echo DSC-MRI with MION (2.0 mg Fe/kg) and staged injection of Gd-diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid: a 0.1-mmol/kg bolus provided no preload (P-) data and served as preload (P+) for a subsequent 0.2-mmol/kg bolus. We computed MION-rCBV (steady-state ΔR2*, tumor versus normal brain) and Gd-rCBV ΔR2* [t] integration) without (C-) and with (C+) postprocessing correction, thereby testing 4 correction permutations: P-C-, P-C+, P+C-, and P+C+. We tested whether each permutation reduced bias and variance of the Gd/MION rCBV differences by using generalized estimating equations and Fmax statistics (P < .05 significant). RESULTS: Gd-rCBV progressively better approximated MION-rCBV with increasing leakage correction. There was no statistically significant bias for the mean percentage deviation of Gd-rCBV from MION-rCBV for any correction permutation, but there was significantly reduced variance by using P+C- (22-fold), P-C+ (32-fold), and P+C+ (267-fold) compared with P-C-. P+C+ provided significant additional variance reduction compared with P+C- (12-fold) and P-C+ (8-fold). Linear regression of Gd-rCBV versus MION-rCBV revealed P+C+ to have the closest slope and intercept compared with the ideal, substantially better than P+C-. CONCLUSIONS: Preload and postprocessing correction significantly reduced the variance of Gd-rCBV estimates, and bias reduction approached significance. Postprocessing correction provide significant benefit beyond preload alone.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Contrast extravasation in DSC-MRI potentiates inaccupan class="Species">rate and imprecise estimates of gliomarCBV. We tested assertions that preload and postprocessing algorithms minimize this error by comparing Gd-rCBV using permutations of these 2 techniques with criterion standard rCBV using MION, an intravascular agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We imaged 7 Fisher rats with 9L gliosarcomas, by using 3T gradient-echo DSC-MRI with MION (2.0 mg Fe/kg) and staged injection of Gd-diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid: a 0.1-mmol/kg bolus provided no preload (P-) data and served as preload (P+) for a subsequent 0.2-mmol/kg bolus. We computed MION-rCBV (steady-state ΔR2*, tumor versus normal brain) and Gd-rCBV ΔR2* [t] integration) without (C-) and with (C+) postprocessing correction, thereby testing 4 correction permutations: P-C-, P-C+, P+C-, and P+C+. We tested whether each permutation reduced bias and variance of the Gd/MIONrCBV differences by using generalized estimating equations and Fmax statistics (P < .05 significant). RESULTS:Gd-rCBV progressively better approximated MION-rCBV with increasing leakage correction. There was no statistically significant bias for the mean percentage deviation of Gd-rCBV from MION-rCBV for any correction permutation, but there was significantly reduced variance by using P+C- (22-fold), P-C+ (32-fold), and P+C+ (267-fold) compared with P-C-. P+C+ provided significant additional variance reduction compared with P+C- (12-fold) and P-C+ (8-fold). Linear regression of Gd-rCBV versus MION-rCBV revealed P+C+ to have the closest slope and intercept compared with the ideal, substantially better than P+C-. CONCLUSIONS: Preload and postprocessing correction significantly reduced the variance of Gd-rCBV estimates, and bias reduction approached significance. Postprocessing correction provide significant benefit beyond preload alone.
Authors: H Uematsu; M Maeda; N Sadato; T Matsuda; Y Ishimori; Y Koshimoto; H Kimura; H Yamada; Y Kawamura; Y Yonekura; H Itoh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2001 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Soonmee Cha; Edmond A Knopp; Glyn Johnson; Stephan G Wetzel; Andrew W Litt; David Zagzag Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephan G Wetzel; Soonmee Cha; Glyn Johnson; Peter Lee; Meng Law; David L Kasow; Sean D Pierce; Xiaonan Xue Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H J Aronen; F S Pardo; D N Kennedy; J W Belliveau; S D Packard; D W Hsu; F H Hochberg; A J Fischman; B R Rosen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: K M Donahue; H G Krouwer; S D Rand; A P Pathak; C S Marszalkowski; S C Censky; R W Prost Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Meng Law; Stanley Yang; James S Babb; Edmond A Knopp; John G Golfinos; David Zagzag; Glyn Johnson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.825
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: A Hilario; J M Sepulveda; A Perez-Nuñez; E Salvador; J M Millan; A Hernandez-Lain; V Rodriguez-Gonzalez; A Lagares; A Ramos Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Pejman Jabehdar Maralani; Elias R Melhem; Sumei Wang; Edward H Herskovits; Matthew R Voluck; Sang Joon Kim; Kim O Learned; Donald M O'Rourke; Suyash Mohan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J Cha; S T Kim; D-H Nam; D-S Kong; H-J Kim; Y K Kim; H Y Kim; G M Park; P Jeon; K H Kim; H S Byun Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Melissa A Prah; Mona M Al-Gizawiy; Wade M Mueller; Elizabeth J Cochran; Raymond G Hoffmann; Jennifer M Connelly; Kathleen M Schmainda Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Kathleen M Schmainda; Zheng Zhang; Melissa Prah; Bradley S Snyder; Mark R Gilbert; A Gregory Sorensen; Daniel P Barboriak; Jerrold L Boxerman Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Zachary S Kelm; Panagiotis D Korfiatis; Ravi K Lingineni; John R Daniels; Jan C Buckner; Daniel H Lachance; Ian F Parney; Rickey E Carter; Bradley J Erickson Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-05-26