K Leu1,2,3, J L Boxerman4, B M Ellingson5,2,6,3,7. 1. From the University of California, Los Angeles Brain Tumor Imaging Laboratory (K.A.B.L., B.M.E.), Center for Computer Vision and Imaging Biomarkers. 2. Department of Bioengineering (K.A.B.L., B.M.E.), Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science. 3. Departments of Radiological Sciences (A.B.L., B.M.E.). 4. Department of Diagnostic Imaging (J.L.B.), Rhode Island Hospital and Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 5. From the University of California, Los Angeles Brain Tumor Imaging Laboratory (K.A.B.L., B.M.E.), Center for Computer Vision and Imaging Biomarkers ellingson@mednet.ucla.edu. 6. University of California, Los Angeles Neuro-Oncology Program (B.M.E.), University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 7. Biomedical Physics (B.M.E.), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: DSC perfusion MR imaging assumes that the contrast agent remains intravascular; thus, disruptions in the blood-brain barrier common in brain tumors can lead to errors in the estimation of relative CBV. Acquisition strategies, including the choice of flip angle, TE, TR, and preload dose and incubation time, along with post hoc leakage-correction algorithms, have been proposed as means for combating these leakage effects. In the current study, we used DSC-MR imaging simulations to examine the influence of these various acquisition parameters and leakage-correction strategies on the faithful estimation of CBV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DSC-MR imaging simulations were performed in 250 tumors with perfusion characteristics randomly generated from the distributions of real tumor population data, and comparison of leakage-corrected CBV was performed with a theoretic curve with no permeability. Optimal strategies were determined by protocol with the lowest mean error. RESULTS: The following acquisition strategies (flip angle/TE/TR and contrast dose allocation for preload and bolus) produced high CBV fidelity, as measured by the percentage difference from a hypothetic tumor with no leakage: 1) 35°/35 ms/1.5 seconds with no preload and full dose for DSC-MR imaging, 2) 35°/25 ms/1.5 seconds with ¼ dose preload and ¾ dose bolus, 3) 60°/35 ms/2.0 seconds with ½ dose preload and ½ dose bolus, and 4) 60°/35 ms/1.0 second with 1 dose preload and 1 dose bolus. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a variety of strategies can yield similarly high fidelity in CBV estimation, namely those that balance T1- and T2*-relaxation effects due to contrast agent extravasation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: DSC perfusion MR imaging assumes that the contrast agent remains intravascular; thus, disruptions in the blood-brain barrier common in brain tumors can lead to errors in the estimation of relative CBV. Acquisition strategies, including the choice of flip angle, TE, TR, and preload dose and incubation time, along with post hoc leakage-correction algorithms, have been proposed as means for combating these leakage effects. In the current study, we used DSC-MR imaging simulations to examine the influence of these various acquisition parameters and leakage-correction strategies on the faithful estimation of CBV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DSC-MR imaging simulations were performed in 250 tumors with perfusion characteristics randomly generated from the distributions of real tumor population data, and comparison of leakage-corrected CBV was performed with a theoretic curve with no permeability. Optimal strategies were determined by protocol with the lowest mean error. RESULTS: The following acquisition strategies (flip angle/TE/TR and contrast dose allocation for preload and bolus) produced high CBV fidelity, as measured by the percentage difference from a hypothetic tumor with no leakage: 1) 35°/35 ms/1.5 seconds with no preload and full dose for DSC-MR imaging, 2) 35°/25 ms/1.5 seconds with ¼ dose preload and ¾ dose bolus, 3) 60°/35 ms/2.0 seconds with ½ dose preload and ½ dose bolus, and 4) 60°/35 ms/1.0 second with 1 dose preload and 1 dose bolus. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a variety of strategies can yield similarly high fidelity in CBV estimation, namely those that balance T1- and T2*-relaxation effects due to contrast agent extravasation.
Authors: A Kassner; D J Annesley; X P Zhu; K L Li; I D Kamaly-Asl; Y Watson; A Jackson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ona Wu; Leif Østergaard; Walter J Koroshetz; Lee H Schwamm; Joanie O'Donnell; Pamela W Schaefer; Bruce R Rosen; Robert M Weisskoff; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Heiko Schmiedeskamp; Matus Straka; Rexford D Newbould; Greg Zaharchuk; Jalal B Andre; Jean-Marc Olivot; Michael E Moseley; Gregory W Albers; Roland Bammer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jack T Skinner; Ryan K Robison; Christopher P Elder; Allen T Newton; Bruce M Damon; C Chad Quarles Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Matthias J P van Osch; Evert-jan P A Vonken; Max A Viergever; Jeroen van der Grond; Chris J G Bakker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-06 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: K M Schmainda; M A Prah; S D Rand; Y Liu; B Logan; M Muzi; S D Rane; X Da; Y-F Yen; J Kalpathy-Cramer; T L Chenevert; B Hoff; B Ross; Y Cao; M P Aryal; B Erickson; P Korfiatis; T Dondlinger; L Bell; L Hu; P E Kinahan; C C Quarles Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J M Hoxworth; J M Eschbacher; A C Gonzales; K W Singleton; G D Leon; K A Smith; A M Stokes; Y Zhou; G L Mazza; A B Porter; M M Mrugala; R S Zimmerman; B R Bendok; D P Patra; C Krishna; J L Boxerman; L C Baxter; K R Swanson; C C Quarles; K M Schmainda; L S Hu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: K M Schmainda; M A Prah; L S Hu; C C Quarles; N Semmineh; S D Rand; J M Connelly; B Anderies; Y Zhou; Y Liu; B Logan; A Stokes; G Baird; J L Boxerman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Timothy J Kaufmann; Marion Smits; Jerrold Boxerman; Raymond Huang; Daniel P Barboriak; Michael Weller; Caroline Chung; Christina Tsien; Paul D Brown; Lalitha Shankar; Evanthia Galanis; Elizabeth Gerstner; Martin J van den Bent; Terry C Burns; Ian F Parney; Gavin Dunn; Priscilla K Brastianos; Nancy U Lin; Patrick Y Wen; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: F Dallery; R Bouzerar; D Michel; C Attencourt; V Promelle; J Peltier; J M Constans; O Balédent; C Gondry-Jouet Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Jerrold L Boxerman; Chad C Quarles; Leland S Hu; Bradley J Erickson; Elizabeth R Gerstner; Marion Smits; Timothy J Kaufmann; Daniel P Barboriak; Raymond H Huang; Wolfgang Wick; Michael Weller; Evanthia Galanis; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Lalitha Shankar; Paula Jacobs; Caroline Chung; Martin J van den Bent; Susan Chang; W K Al Yung; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Mark R Gilbert; Bruce R Rosen; Benjamin M Ellingson; Kathleen M Schmainda Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 12.300