Literature DB >> 28562204

Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging versus Contrast-enhanced US: A Comparison in Glioblastoma Surgery by Using Intraoperative Fusion Imaging.

Francesco Prada1, Valerio Vitale1, Massimiliano Del Bene1, Carlo Boffano1, Luca Maria Sconfienza1, Valentina Pinzi1, Giovanni Mauri1, Luigi Solbiati1, Georgios Sakas1, Velizar Kolev1, Ludovico D'Incerti1, Francesco DiMeco1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare contrast material enhancement of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) with intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (US) versus that with preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using real-time fusion imaging. Materials and Methods Ten patients with GBM were retrospectively identified by using routinely collected, anonymized data. Navigated contrast-enhanced US was performed after intravenous administration of contrast material before tumor resection. All patients underwent tumor excision with navigated intraoperative US guidance with use of fusion imaging between real-time intraoperative US and preoperative MR imaging. With use of fusion imaging, glioblastoma contrast enhancement at contrast-enhanced US (regarding location, morphologic features, margins, dimensions, and pattern) was compared with that at gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging. Results Fusion imaging for virtual navigation enabled matching of real-time contrast-enhanced US scans to corresponding coplanar preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR images in all cases, with a positional discrepancy of less than 2 mm. Contrast enhancement of gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced US was superimposable in all cases with regard to location, margins, dimensions, and morphologic features. The qualitative analysis of contrast enhancement pattern demonstrated a similar distribution in contrast-enhanced US and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging in nine patients: Seven lesions showed peripheral inhomogeneous ring enhancement, and two lesions showed a prevalent nodular pattern. In one patient, the contrast enhancement pattern differed between the two modalities: Contrast-enhanced US showed enhancement of the entire bulk of the tumor, whereas gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging demonstrated peripheral contrast enhancement. Conclusion Glioblastoma contrast enhancement with contrast-enhanced US is superimposable on that provided with preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging regarding location, margins, morphologic features, and dimensions, with a similar enhancement pattern in most cases. Thus, contrast-enhanced US is of potential use in the surgical management of GBM. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28562204     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017161206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  15 in total

Review 1.  Applications of Focused Ultrasound in Cerebrovascular Diseases and Brain Tumors.

Authors:  Francesco Prada; M Yashar S Kalani; Kaan Yagmurlu; Pedro Norat; Massimiliano Del Bene; Francesco DiMeco; Neal F Kassell
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.620

2.  Real-time fusion-imaging in low back pain: a new navigation system for facet joint injections.

Authors:  Elena Massone; Davide Orlandi; Alberto Bellelli; Fabio Martino; Luca Cavagnaro; Matteo Formica; Pietro Caruso; Enzo Silvestri
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 3.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the pediatric brain.

Authors:  Misun Hwang; Carol E Barnewolt; Jörg Jüngert; Francesco Prada; Anush Sridharan; Ryne A Didier
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2021-02-18

4.  Quantitative analysis of in-vivo microbubble distribution in the human brain.

Authors:  Francesco Prada; Antonio G Gennari; Ian M Linville; Michael E Mutersbaugh; Zhihang Chen; Natasha Sheybani; Francesco DiMeco; Frederic Padilla; John A Hossack
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Intraoperative ultrasound techniques for cerebral gliomas resection: usefulness and pitfalls.

Authors:  Alessandro Moiraghi; Johan Pallud
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-04

Review 6.  Current Limitations of Intraoperative Ultrasound in Brain Tumor Surgery.

Authors:  Andrej Šteňo; Ján Buvala; Veronika Babková; Adrián Kiss; David Toma; Alexander Lysak
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 7.  State-of-the-art imaging for glioma surgery.

Authors:  Niels Verburg; Philip C de Witt Hamer
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 3.042

8.  Intraoperative Ultrasound: Emerging Technology and Novel Applications in Brain Tumor Surgery.

Authors:  Giuseppe Roberto Giammalva; Gianluca Ferini; Sofia Musso; Giuseppe Salvaggio; Maria Angela Pino; Rosa Maria Gerardi; Lara Brunasso; Roberta Costanzo; Federica Paolini; Rina Di Bonaventura; Giuseppe Emmanuele Umana; Francesca Graziano; Paolo Palmisciano; Gianluca Scalia; Silvana Tumbiolo; Massimo Midiri; Domenico Gerardo Iacopino; Rosario Maugeri
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 9.  Hemodynamic Imaging in Cerebral Diffuse Glioma-Part B: Molecular Correlates, Treatment Effect Monitoring, Prognosis, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Vittorio Stumpo; Lelio Guida; Jacopo Bellomo; Christiaan Hendrik Bas Van Niftrik; Martina Sebök; Moncef Berhouma; Andrea Bink; Michael Weller; Zsolt Kulcsar; Luca Regli; Jorn Fierstra
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-05       Impact factor: 6.639

10.  Intraoperative B-Mode Ultrasound Guided Surgery and the Extent of Glioblastoma Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Fatih Incekara; Marion Smits; Linda Dirven; Eelke M Bos; Rutger K Balvers; Iain K Haitsma; Joost W Schouten; Arnaud J P E Vincent
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.