Meritxell Garcia1, Monika Gloor2, Oliver Bieri2, Ernst-Wilhelm Radue3, Johanna M Lieb1, Dominik Cordier4, Christoph Stippich1. 1. Division of Diagnostic & Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Clinic for Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University of Basel Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Division of Radiological Physics, Department of Radiology, Clinic for Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University of Basel Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Medical Imaging Analysis Center, University of Basel Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Basel Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study assesses whether magnetization transfer (MT) imaging provides additive information to conventional MRI in brain tumors. METHODS: MT data of 26 patients with neoplastic and metastatic brain tumors were analyzed at 1.5 T. For the 3 largest tumor groups investigated in this study--glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), meningiomas, and metastases-statistical comparisons were performed. Analyzed MT parameters included the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) and 4 quantitative MT parameters (qMT): Relaxation times (T1, T2), exchange rate (kf), and macromolecular content (F). Total imaging time of high-resolution whole brain MTR and qMT imaging with balanced steady-state free precession required 9 minutes. Five ROIs were chosen: Contrast-enhancing (T1W-CE), noncontrast-enhancing (T1W-non-CE), proximal hyperintensity (T2W-pSI), distal hyperintensity (T2W-dSI), and a reference (ref). RESULTS: Pathologies showed significant (P < .05) MT changes (MTR and qMT) compared to the reference. The T1W-CE, T1W-non-CE, and T2W-pSI ROIs of GBMs, meningiomas, and metastases showed significant differences in MTR and qMT estimates. Similar MTR with significant different qMT values were observed in several ROIs among different lesions. MT maps (MTR and qMT) indicated changes in tissue appearing unaffected on MRI in most glial tumors. CONCLUSIONS: MTR and qMT imaging enables a better differentiation between brain tumors and provides additive information to MRI.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study assesses whether magnetization transfer (MT) imaging provides additive information to conventional MRI in brain tumors. METHODS: MT data of 26 patients with neoplastic and metastatic brain tumors were analyzed at 1.5 T. For the 3 largest tumor groups investigated in this study--glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), meningiomas, and metastases-statistical comparisons were performed. Analyzed MT parameters included the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) and 4 quantitative MT parameters (qMT): Relaxation times (T1, T2), exchange rate (kf), and macromolecular content (F). Total imaging time of high-resolution whole brain MTR and qMT imaging with balanced steady-state free precession required 9 minutes. Five ROIs were chosen: Contrast-enhancing (T1W-CE), noncontrast-enhancing (T1W-non-CE), proximal hyperintensity (T2W-pSI), distal hyperintensity (T2W-dSI), and a reference (ref). RESULTS: Pathologies showed significant (P < .05) MT changes (MTR and qMT) compared to the reference. The T1W-CE, T1W-non-CE, and T2W-pSI ROIs of GBMs, meningiomas, and metastases showed significant differences in MTR and qMT estimates. Similar MTR with significant different qMT values were observed in several ROIs among different lesions. MT maps (MTR and qMT) indicated changes in tissue appearing unaffected on MRI in most glial tumors. CONCLUSIONS: MTR and qMT imaging enables a better differentiation between brain tumors and provides additive information to MRI.
Authors: Paula Trujillo; Paul E Summers; Alex K Smith; Seth A Smith; Luca T Mainardi; Sergio Cerutti; Daniel O Claassen; Antonella Costa Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Tristan Barrett; Mary McLean; Andrew N Priest; Edward M Lawrence; Andrew J Patterson; Brendan C Koo; Ilse Patterson; Anne Y Warren; Andrew Doble; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Christof Kastner; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alex K Smith; Kevin J Ray; James R Larkin; Martin Craig; Seth A Smith; Michael A Chappell Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Rory J Piper; Shadia Mikhael; Joanna M Wardlaw; David H Laidlaw; Ian R Whittle; Mark E Bastin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Kai Jiang; Yiyuan Fang; Christopher M Ferguson; Hui Tang; Prasanna K Mishra; Slobodan I Macura; Lilach O Lerman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 4.813