BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Both technical and pathophysiologic factors affect PSR in DSC-MR imaging. We aimed to determine how TE, flip angle (α), and contrast dose impact PSR in high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively computed PSR maps for 22 patients with high-grade gliomas, comparing 3 DSC-MR imaging methods by using single-dose gadodiamide without preload administration: A (n = 7), α = 35°, TE = 54 ms; B (n = 5), α = 72°, TE = 30 ms; C (n = 10), α = 90°, TE = 30 ms. Methods A-C served as preload for subsequent dynamic imaging using method D (method C parameters but with double-dose contrast). We compared first- and second-injection tumor PSR for methods C and D (paired t test) and tumor PSR for both injections grouped by the first-injection acquisition method (3-group nonparametric 1-way ANOVA). We compared PSR in tumor and normal brain for each first- and second-injection method group (paired t test). RESULTS: First-injection PSR in tumor and normal brain differed significantly for methods B (P = .01) and C (P = .05), but not A (P = .71). First-injection tumor PSR increased with T1 weighting with a significant main effect of method groupings (P = .0012), but there was no significant main effect for first-injection normal brain (P = .93), or second-injection tumor (P = .95) or normal brain (P = .13). In patients scanned with methods C and D, first-injection PSR significantly exceeded second-injection PSR for tumor (P = .037) and normal brain (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: PSR strongly depends on the T1 weighting of DSC-MR imaging, including pulse sequence (TE, α) and contrast agent (dose, preload) parameters, with implications for protocol design and the interpretation and comparison of PSR values across tumor types and imaging centers.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Both technical and pathophysiologic factors affect PSR in DSC-MR imaging. We aimed to determine how TE, flip angle (α), and contrast dose impact PSR in high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively computed PSR maps for 22 patients with high-grade gliomas, comparing 3 DSC-MR imaging methods by using single-dose gadodiamide without preload administration: A (n = 7), α = 35°, TE = 54 ms; B (n = 5), α = 72°, TE = 30 ms; C (n = 10), α = 90°, TE = 30 ms. Methods A-C served as preload for subsequent dynamic imaging using method D (method C parameters but with double-dose contrast). We compared first- and second-injection tumorPSR for methods C and D (paired t test) and tumorPSR for both injections grouped by the first-injection acquisition method (3-group nonparametric 1-way ANOVA). We compared PSR in tumor and normal brain for each first- and second-injection method group (paired t test). RESULTS: First-injection PSR in tumor and normal brain differed significantly for methods B (P = .01) and C (P = .05), but not A (P = .71). First-injection tumorPSR increased with T1 weighting with a significant main effect of method groupings (P = .0012), but there was no significant main effect for first-injection normal brain (P = .93), or second-injection tumor (P = .95) or normal brain (P = .13). In patients scanned with methods C and D, first-injection PSR significantly exceeded second-injection PSR for tumor (P = .037) and normal brain (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:PSR strongly depends on the T1 weighting of DSC-MR imaging, including pulse sequence (TE, α) and contrast agent (dose, preload) parameters, with implications for protocol design and the interpretation and comparison of PSR values across tumor types and imaging centers.
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: Kathleen M Schmainda; Scott D Rand; Allen M Joseph; Rebecca Lund; B Doug Ward; Arvind P Pathak; John L Ulmer; Michael A Badruddoja; Michael A Baddrudoja; Hendrikus G J Krouwer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.825
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: J L Boxerman; D E Prah; E S Paulson; J T Machan; D Bedekar; K M Schmainda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 3.825
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: A Pons-Escoda; A Garcia-Ruiz; P Naval-Baudin; M Cos; N Vidal; G Plans; J Bruna; R Perez-Lopez; C Majos Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Natenael B Semmineh; Junzhong Xu; Jack T Skinner; Jingping Xie; Hua Li; Gregory Ayers; C Chad Quarles Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Natenael B Semmineh; Junzhong Xu; Jerrold L Boxerman; Gary W Delaney; Paul W Cleary; John C Gore; C Chad Quarles Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jan Novak; Stephanie Barbara Withey; Shaheen Lateef; Lesley MacPherson; Benjamin Pinkey; Andrew C Peet Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 3.039