L Danieli1, G C Riccitelli2,3, D Distefano1, E Prodi1, E Ventura1, A Cianfoni1,4, A Kaelin-Lang2,5,6, M Reinert7,6, E Pravatà8. 1. From the Departments of Neuroradiology (L.D., D.D., E.P., E.V., A.C., E.P.). 2. Neurology (G.C.R., A.K.-L.). 3. Neuroimaging Research Unit (G.C.R.), Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 4. Departments of Neuroradiology (A.C.). 5. Neurology (A.K.-L.), Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 6. Faculty of Biomedical Sciences (A.K.-L., M.R.), Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland. 7. Neurosurgery (M.R.), Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland. 8. From the Departments of Neuroradiology (L.D., D.D., E.P., E.V., A.C., E.P.) emanuele.pravata@eoc.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postgadolinium MR imaging is crucial for brain tumor diagnosis and morphometric assessment. We compared brain tumor enhancement visualization and the "target" object morphometry obtained with the most commonly used 3D MR imaging technique, MPRAGE, with 2 other routinely available techniques: sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts by using different flip angle evolutions (SPACE) and volumetric interpolated brain examination (VIBE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four contrast-enhancing tumors (38 gliomas and 16 metastases) were assessed using MPRAGE, VIBE, and SPACE techniques randomly acquired after gadolinium-based contrast agent administration on a 3T scanner. Enhancement conspicuity was assessed quantitatively by calculating the contrast rate and contrast-to-noise ratio, and qualitatively, by consensus visual comparative ratings. The total enhancing tumor volume and between-sequence discrepancy in the margin delineation were assessed on the corresponding 3D target objects contoured with a computer-assisted software for neuronavigation. The Wilcoxon signed rank and Pearson χ2 nonparametric tests were used to investigate between-sequence discrepancies in the contrast rate, contrast-to-noise ratio, visual conspicuity ratings, tumor volume, and margin delineation estimates. Differences were also tested for 1D (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and 2D (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) measurements. RESULTS: Compared with MPRAGE, both SPACE and VIBE obtained higher contrast rate, contrast-to-noise ratio, and visual conspicuity ratings in both gliomas and metastases (P range, <.001-.001). The between-sequence 3D target object margin discrepancy ranged between 3% and 19.9% of lesion tumor volume. Larger tumor volumes, 1D and 2D measurements were obtained with SPACE (P range, <.01-.007). CONCLUSIONS: Superior conspicuity for brain tumor enhancement can be achieved using SPACE and VIBE techniques, compared with MPRAGE. Discrepancies were also detected when assessing target object size and morphology, with SPACE providing more accurate estimates.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postgadolinium MR imaging is crucial for brain tumor diagnosis and morphometric assessment. We compared brain tumor enhancement visualization and the "target" object morphometry obtained with the most commonly used 3D MR imaging technique, MPRAGE, with 2 other routinely available techniques: sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts by using different flip angle evolutions (SPACE) and volumetric interpolated brain examination (VIBE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four contrast-enhancing tumors (38 gliomas and 16 metastases) were assessed using MPRAGE, VIBE, and SPACE techniques randomly acquired after gadolinium-based contrast agent administration on a 3T scanner. Enhancement conspicuity was assessed quantitatively by calculating the contrast rate and contrast-to-noise ratio, and qualitatively, by consensus visual comparative ratings. The total enhancing tumor volume and between-sequence discrepancy in the margin delineation were assessed on the corresponding 3D target objects contoured with a computer-assisted software for neuronavigation. The Wilcoxon signed rank and Pearson χ2 nonparametric tests were used to investigate between-sequence discrepancies in the contrast rate, contrast-to-noise ratio, visual conspicuity ratings, tumor volume, and margin delineation estimates. Differences were also tested for 1D (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and 2D (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) measurements. RESULTS: Compared with MPRAGE, both SPACE and VIBE obtained higher contrast rate, contrast-to-noise ratio, and visual conspicuity ratings in both gliomas and metastases (P range, <.001-.001). The between-sequence 3D target object margin discrepancy ranged between 3% and 19.9% of lesion tumor volume. Larger tumor volumes, 1D and 2D measurements were obtained with SPACE (P range, <.01-.007). CONCLUSIONS: Superior conspicuity for brain tumor enhancement can be achieved using SPACE and VIBE techniques, compared with MPRAGE. Discrepancies were also detected when assessing target object size and morphology, with SPACE providing more accurate estimates.
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Anne W S Rutjes; Khalid S Khan; Arri Coomarasamy; Patrick M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-05-17 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: J Hodel; O Outteryck; E Ryo; A-L Bocher; O Lambert; D Chéchin; H Zéphir; A Lacour; J-P Pruvo; P Vermersch; X Leclerc Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Douglas Kondziolka; Hideyuki Kano; Gillian L Harrison; Huai-Che Yang; Donald N Liew; Ajay Niranjan; Adam M Brufsky; John C Flickinger; L Dade Lunsford Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 5.115
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: Ayal A Aizer; Nayan Lamba; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Kenneth Aldape; Adrienne Boire; Priscilla K Brastianos; Paul D Brown; D Ross Camidge; Veronica L Chiang; Michael A Davies; Leland S Hu; Raymond Y Huang; Timothy Kaufmann; Priya Kumthekar; Keng Lam; Eudocia Q Lee; Nancy U Lin; Minesh Mehta; Michael Parsons; David A Reardon; Jason Sheehan; Riccardo Soffietti; Hussein Tawbi; Michael Weller; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 13.029
Authors: L Danieli; L Roccatagliata; D Distefano; E Prodi; G C Riccitelli; A Diociasi; L Carmisciano; A Cianfoni; T Bartalena; A Kaelin-Lang; C Gobbi; C Zecca; E Pravatà Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Jing Yuan; Stephen C K Law; Ka Kin Wong; Gladys G Lo; Michael K M Kam; Wing Hong Kwan; Cindy Xue; Oi Lei Wong; Siu Ki Yu; Kin Yin Cheung Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 4.553