INTRODUCTION: SWI can help to identify high-grade gliomas (HGG). The objective of this study was to analyse SWI and CE-SWI characteristics, i.e. the relationship between contrast-induced phase shifts (CIPS) and intratumoral susceptibility signals (ITSS) and their association with tumour volume in patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI studies of 29 patients were performed to evaluate distinct susceptibility signals comparing SWI and CE-SWI characteristics. The relationship between these susceptibility signals and CE-T1w tumour volume was analysed by using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and Kruskal-Wallis-test. Tumour biopsies of different susceptibility signals were performed in one patient. RESULTS: Comparison of SWI and CE-SWI demonstrated different susceptibility signals. Susceptibility signals visible on SWI images are consistent with ITSS; those only seen on CE-SWI were identified as CIPS. Correlation with CE-T1w tumour volume revealed that CIPS were especially present in small or medium-sized GBM (Spearman's rho r = 0.843, P < 0.001). Histology identified the area with CIPS as the tumour invasion zone, while the area with ITSS represented micro-haemorrhage, highly pathological vessels and necrosis. CONCLUSION: CE-SWI adds information to the evaluation of GBM before therapy. It might have the potential to non-invasively identify the tumour invasion zone as demonstrated by biopsies in one case. KEY POINTS: • MRI is used to help differentiate between low- and high-grade gliomas. • Contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted MRI (CE-SWI) helps to identify patients with glioblastoma multiforme. • CE-SWI delineates the susceptibility signal (CIPS and ITSS) more than the native SWI. • CE-SWI might have the potential to non-invasively identify the tumour invasion zone.
INTRODUCTION: SWI can help to identify high-grade gliomas (HGG). The objective of this study was to analyse SWI and CE-SWI characteristics, i.e. the relationship between contrast-induced phase shifts (CIPS) and intratumoral susceptibility signals (ITSS) and their association with tumour volume in patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI studies of 29 patients were performed to evaluate distinct susceptibility signals comparing SWI and CE-SWI characteristics. The relationship between these susceptibility signals and CE-T1w tumour volume was analysed by using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and Kruskal-Wallis-test. Tumour biopsies of different susceptibility signals were performed in one patient. RESULTS: Comparison of SWI and CE-SWI demonstrated different susceptibility signals. Susceptibility signals visible on SWI images are consistent with ITSS; those only seen on CE-SWI were identified as CIPS. Correlation with CE-T1w tumour volume revealed that CIPS were especially present in small or medium-sized GBM (Spearman's rho r = 0.843, P < 0.001). Histology identified the area with CIPS as the tumour invasion zone, while the area with ITSS represented micro-haemorrhage, highly pathological vessels and necrosis. CONCLUSION: CE-SWI adds information to the evaluation of GBM before therapy. It might have the potential to non-invasively identify the tumour invasion zone as demonstrated by biopsies in one case. KEY POINTS: • MRI is used to help differentiate between low- and high-grade gliomas. • Contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted MRI (CE-SWI) helps to identify patients with glioblastoma multiforme. • CE-SWI delineates the susceptibility signal (CIPS and ITSS) more than the native SWI. • CE-SWI might have the potential to non-invasively identify the tumour invasion zone.
Authors: Vivek Sehgal; Zachary Delproposto; E Mark Haacke; Karen A Tong; Nathaniel Wycliffe; Daniel K Kido; Yingbiao Xu; Jaladhar Neelavalli; Djamel Haddar; Jürgen R Reichenbach Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alexander Rauscher; Jan Sedlacik; Andreas Deistung; Hans-Joachim Mentzel; Jürgen R Reichenbach Journal: Z Med Phys Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.820
Authors: K Pinker; I M Noebauer-Huhmann; I Stavrou; R Hoeftberger; P Szomolanyi; G Karanikas; M Weber; A Stadlbauer; E Knosp; K Friedrich; S Trattnig Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Charlie Chia-Tsong Hsu; E Mark Haacke; Chinthaka Chris Heyn; Trevor William Watkins; Timo Krings Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2018-01-13 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Jerome Aellen; Eugenio Abela; Sarah E Buerki; Raimund Kottke; Elisabeth Springer; Kaspar Schindler; Christian Weisstanner; Marwan El-Koussy; Gerhard Schroth; Roland Wiest; Jan Gralla; Rajeev K Verma Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kai R Laukamp; Florian Lindemann; Matthias Weckesser; Volker Hesselmann; Sandra Ligges; Johannes Wölfer; Astrid Jeibmann; Bastian Zinnhardt; Thomas Viel; Michael Schäfers; Werner Paulus; Walter Stummer; Otmar Schober; Andreas H Jacobs Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: S C Thust; S Heiland; A Falini; H R Jäger; A D Waldman; P C Sundgren; C Godi; V K Katsaros; A Ramos; N Bargallo; M W Vernooij; T Yousry; M Bendszus; M Smits Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315