Atsuko Arisawa1, Yoshiyuki Watanabe2, Hisashi Tanaka1, Hiroto Takahashi1, Chisato Matsuo1, Takuya Fujiwara1, Masahiro Fujiwara1, Yasunori Fujimoto3, Noriyuki Tomiyama1. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. watanabe@radiol.med.osaka-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Arterial spin labeling (ASL) is a non-invasive perfusion technique that may be an alternative to dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI) for assessment of brain tumors. To our knowledge, there have been no reports on histogram analysis of ASL. The purpose of this study was to determine whether ASL is comparable with DSC-MRI in terms of differentiating high-grade and low-grade gliomas by evaluating the histogram analysis of cerebral blood flow (CBF) in the entire tumor. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with pathologically proven glioma underwent ASL and DSC-MRI. High-signal areas on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images or high-intensity areas on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images were designated as the volumes of interest (VOIs). ASL-CBF, DSC-CBF, and DSC-cerebral blood volume maps were constructed and co-registered to the VOI. Perfusion histogram analyses of the whole VOI and statistical analyses were performed to compare the ASL and DSC images. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean values for any of the histogram metrics in both of the low-grade gliomas (n = 15) and the high-grade gliomas (n = 19). Strong correlations were seen in the 75th percentile, mean, median, and standard deviation values between the ASL and DSC images. The area under the curve values tended to be greater for the DSC images than for the ASL images. CONCLUSIONS: DSC-MRI is superior to ASL for distinguishing high-grade from low-grade glioma. ASL could be an alternative evaluation method when DSC-MRI cannot be used, e.g., in patients with renal failure, those in whom repeated examination is required, and in children.
PURPOSE: Arterial spin labeling (ASL) is a non-invasive perfusion technique that may be an alternative to dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI) for assessment of brain tumors. To our knowledge, there have been no reports on histogram analysis of ASL. The purpose of this study was to determine whether ASL is comparable with DSC-MRI in terms of differentiating high-grade and low-grade gliomas by evaluating the histogram analysis of cerebral blood flow (CBF) in the entire tumor. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with pathologically proven glioma underwent ASL and DSC-MRI. High-signal areas on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images or high-intensity areas on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images were designated as the volumes of interest (VOIs). ASL-CBF, DSC-CBF, and DSC-cerebral blood volume maps were constructed and co-registered to the VOI. Perfusion histogram analyses of the whole VOI and statistical analyses were performed to compare the ASL and DSC images. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean values for any of the histogram metrics in both of the low-grade gliomas (n = 15) and the high-grade gliomas (n = 19). Strong correlations were seen in the 75th percentile, mean, median, and standard deviation values between the ASL and DSC images. The area under the curve values tended to be greater for the DSC images than for the ASL images. CONCLUSIONS: DSC-MRI is superior to ASL for distinguishing high-grade from low-grade glioma. ASL could be an alternative evaluation method when DSC-MRI cannot be used, e.g., in patients with renal failure, those in whom repeated examination is required, and in children.
Authors: Carissa M White; Whitney B Pope; Taryar Zaw; Joe Qiao; Kourosh M Naeini; Albert Lai; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; J J Wang; Timothy F Cloughesy; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Nozomu Murata; Luis F Gonzalez-Cuyar; Kiyoko Murata; Corinne Fligner; Russell Dills; Daniel Hippe; Kenneth R Maravilla Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: K W Yeom; L A Mitchell; R M Lober; P D Barnes; H Vogel; P G Fisher; M S Edwards Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Gernot Reishofer; Karl Koschutnig; Christian Enzinger; Anja Ischebeck; Stephen Keeling; Rudolf Stollberger; Franz Ebner Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: A I Batalov; N E Zakharova; I N Pronin; A Yu Belyaev; E L Pogosbekyan; S A Goryaynov; A E Bykanov; A N Tyurina; A M Shevchenko; K D Solozhentseva; P V Nikitin; A A Potapov Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: José Gerardo Suárez-García; Javier Miguel Hernández-López; Eduardo Moreno-Barbosa; Benito de Celis-Alonso Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240