P Alcaide-Leon1, D Pareto2, E Martinez-Saez3, C Auger2, A Bharatha4, A Rovira2. 1. From the Department of Radiology, MR Unit (P.A.-L., D.P., C.A., A.R.) paulaalcaideleon@hotmail.com. 2. From the Department of Radiology, MR Unit (P.A.-L., D.P., C.A., A.R.). 3. Department of Pathology (E.M.-S.), Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Department of Medical Imaging (A.B.), St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Estimates of blood volume and volume transfer constant are parameters commonly used to characterize hemodynamic properties of brain lesions. The purposes of this study were to compare values of volume transfer constant and estimates of blood volume in high-grade gliomas on a pixel-by-pixel basis to comprehend whether they provide different information and to compare estimates of blood volume obtained by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with biopsy-proved grade IV gliomas underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and parametric maps of volume transfer constant, plasma volume, and CBV maps were calculated. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients among matching values of CBV, volume transfer constant, and plasma volume were calculated on a pixel-by-pixel basis. Comparison of median values of normalized CBV and plasma volume was performed. RESULTS: Weak-but-significant correlation (P < .001) was noted for all comparisons. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were as follows: volume transfer constant versus CBV, ρ = 0.113; volume transfer constant versus plasma volume, ρ = 0.256; CBV versus plasma volume, ρ = 0.382. We found a statistically significant difference (P < .001) for the estimates of blood volume obtained by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (mean normalized plasma volume, 13.89 ± 11.25) and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging (mean normalized CBV, 4.37 ± 4.04). CONCLUSIONS: The finding of a very weak correlation between estimates of microvascular density and volume transfer constant suggests that they provide different information. Estimates of blood volume obtained by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging are significantly higher than those obtained by dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging in human gliomas, most likely due to the effect of contrast leakage.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Estimates of blood volume and volume transfer constant are parameters commonly used to characterize hemodynamic properties of brain lesions. The purposes of this study were to compare values of volume transfer constant and estimates of blood volume in high-grade gliomas on a pixel-by-pixel basis to comprehend whether they provide different information and to compare estimates of blood volume obtained by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with biopsy-proved grade IV gliomas underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and parametric maps of volume transfer constant, plasma volume, and CBV maps were calculated. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients among matching values of CBV, volume transfer constant, and plasma volume were calculated on a pixel-by-pixel basis. Comparison of median values of normalized CBV and plasma volume was performed. RESULTS: Weak-but-significant correlation (P < .001) was noted for all comparisons. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were as follows: volume transfer constant versus CBV, ρ = 0.113; volume transfer constant versus plasma volume, ρ = 0.256; CBV versus plasma volume, ρ = 0.382. We found a statistically significant difference (P < .001) for the estimates of blood volume obtained by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (mean normalized plasma volume, 13.89 ± 11.25) and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging (mean normalized CBV, 4.37 ± 4.04). CONCLUSIONS: The finding of a very weak correlation between estimates of microvascular density and volume transfer constant suggests that they provide different information. Estimates of blood volume obtained by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging are significantly higher than those obtained by dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging in humangliomas, most likely due to the effect of contrast leakage.
Authors: Yue Cao; Christina I Tsien; Vijaya Nagesh; Larry Junck; Randall Ten Haken; Brian D Ross; Thomas L Chenevert; Theodore S Lawrence Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-11-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tufail F Patankar; Hamied A Haroon; Samantha J Mills; Danielle Balériaux; David L Buckley; Geoff J M Parker; Alan Jackson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Marco Essig; Mark S Shiroishi; Thanh Binh Nguyen; Marc Saake; James M Provenzale; David Enterline; Nicoletta Anzalone; Arnd Dörfler; Alex Rovira; Max Wintermark; Meng Law Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.959
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 Gregory Sorensen; Tracy T Batchelor; Wei-Ting Zhang; Poe-Jou Chen; Priscilla Yeo; Meiyun Wang; Dominique Jennings; Patrick Y Wen; Johanna Lahdenranta; Marek Ancukiewicz; Emmanuelle di Tomaso; Dan G Duda; Rakesh K Jain Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: R Bruening; K K Kwong; M J Vevea; F H Hochberg; L Cher; G R Harsh; P T Niemi; R M Weisskoff; B R Rosen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David N Louis; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Webster K Cavenee; Peter C Burger; Anne Jouvet; Bernd W Scheithauer; Paul Kleihues Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Vaios Hatzoglou; T Jonathan Yang; Antonio Omuro; Igor Gavrilovic; Gary Ulaner; Jennifer Rubel; Taylor Schneider; Kaitlin M Woo; Zhigang Zhang; Kyung K Peck; Kathryn Beal; Robert J Young Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-12-19 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Y S Choi; D W Kim; S-K Lee; J H Chang; S-G Kang; E H Kim; S H Kim; T H Rim; S S Ahn Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Julio Arevalo-Perez; Amanuel A Kebede; Kyung K Peck; Eli Diamond; Andrei I Holodny; Marc Rosenblum; Jennifer Rubel; Joshua Gaal; Vaios Hatzoglou Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2015-12-26 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Michelle M Kim; Hemant A Parmar; Madhava P Aryal; Charles S Mayo; James M Balter; Theodore S Lawrence; Yue Cao Journal: Tomography Date: 2019-03