M D Lee1, G L Baird2, L C Bell3, C C Quarles3, J L Boxerman4,2. 1. From the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (M.D.L., J.L.B.), Providence, Rhode Island. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging (G.L.B., J.L.B.), Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island. 3. Division of Neuroimaging Research (L.C.B., C.C.Q.), Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona. 4. From the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (M.D.L., J.L.B.), Providence, Rhode Island jboxerman@lifespan.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The percentage signal recovery in non-leakage-corrected (no preload, high flip angle, intermediate TE) DSC-MR imaging is known to differ significantly for glioblastoma, metastasis, and primary CNS lymphoma. Because the percentage signal recovery is influenced by preload and pulse sequence parameters, we investigated whether the percentage signal recovery can still differentiate these common contrast-enhancing neoplasms using a DSC-MR imaging protocol designed for relative CBV accuracy (preload, intermediate flip angle, low TE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed DSC-MR imaging of treatment-naïve, pathology-proved glioblastomas (n = 14), primary central nervous system lymphomas (n = 7), metastases (n = 20), and meningiomas (n = 13) using a protocol designed for relative CBV accuracy (a one-quarter-dose preload and single-dose bolus of gadobutrol, TR/TE = 1290/40 ms, flip angle = 60° at 1.5T). Mean percentage signal recovery, relative CBV, and normalized baseline signal intensity were compared within contrast-enhancing lesion volumes. Classification accuracy was determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Relative CBV best differentiated meningioma from glioblastoma and from metastasis with areas under the curve of 0.84 and 0.82, respectively. The percentage signal recovery best differentiated primary central nervous system lymphoma from metastasis with an area under the curve of 0.81. Relative CBV and percentage signal recovery were similar in differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma and from meningioma. Although neither relative CBV nor percentage signal recovery differentiated glioblastoma from metastasis, mean normalized baseline signal intensity achieved 86% sensitivity and 50% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to results for non-preload-based DSC-MR imaging, percentage signal recovery for one-quarter-dose preload-based, intermediate flip angle DSC-MR imaging differentiates most pair-wise comparisons of glioblastoma, metastasis, primary central nervous system lymphoma, and meningioma, except for glioblastoma versus metastasis. Differences in normalized post-preload baseline signal for glioblastoma and metastasis, reflecting a snapshot of dynamic contrast enhancement, may motivate the use of single-dose multiecho protocols permitting simultaneous quantification of DSC-MR imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging parameters.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The percentage signal recovery in non-leakage-corrected (no preload, high flip angle, intermediate TE) DSC-MR imaging is known to differ significantly for glioblastoma, metastasis, and primary CNS lymphoma. Because the percentage signal recovery is influenced by preload and pulse sequence parameters, we investigated whether the percentage signal recovery can still differentiate these common contrast-enhancing neoplasms using a DSC-MR imaging protocol designed for relative CBV accuracy (preload, intermediate flip angle, low TE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed DSC-MR imaging of treatment-naïve, pathology-proved glioblastomas (n = 14), primary central nervous system lymphomas (n = 7), metastases (n = 20), and meningiomas (n = 13) using a protocol designed for relative CBV accuracy (a one-quarter-dose preload and single-dose bolus of gadobutrol, TR/TE = 1290/40 ms, flip angle = 60° at 1.5T). Mean percentage signal recovery, relative CBV, and normalized baseline signal intensity were compared within contrast-enhancing lesion volumes. Classification accuracy was determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Relative CBV best differentiated meningioma from glioblastoma and from metastasis with areas under the curve of 0.84 and 0.82, respectively. The percentage signal recovery best differentiated primary central nervous system lymphoma from metastasis with an area under the curve of 0.81. Relative CBV and percentage signal recovery were similar in differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma and from meningioma. Although neither relative CBV nor percentage signal recovery differentiated glioblastoma from metastasis, mean normalized baseline signal intensity achieved 86% sensitivity and 50% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to results for non-preload-based DSC-MR imaging, percentage signal recovery for one-quarter-dose preload-based, intermediate flip angle DSC-MR imaging differentiates most pair-wise comparisons of glioblastoma, metastasis, primary central nervous system lymphoma, and meningioma, except for glioblastoma versus metastasis. Differences in normalized post-preload baseline signal for glioblastoma and metastasis, reflecting a snapshot of dynamic contrast enhancement, may motivate the use of single-dose multiecho protocols permitting simultaneous quantification of DSC-MR imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging parameters.
Authors: Yvonne W Lui; Amit Malhotra; Joaquim M Farinhas; Swetha B Dasari; Karen Weidenheim; Katherine Freeman; Patrick A LaSala Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tadeusz W Stadnik; Philippe Demaerel; Robert R Luypaert; Christo Chaskis; Katrijn L Van Rompaey; Alex Michotte; Michel J Osteaux Journal: Radiographics Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: S Cha; J M Lupo; M-H Chen; K R Lamborn; M W McDermott; M S Berger; S J Nelson; W P Dillon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Kremer; S Grand; F Berger; D Hoffmann; B Pasquier; C Rémy; A L Benabid; J F Le Bas Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2002-12-07 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Natenael B Semmineh; Junzhong Xu; Jack T Skinner; Jingping Xie; Hua Li; Gregory Ayers; C Chad Quarles Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: A Pons-Escoda; A Garcia-Ruiz; P Naval-Baudin; M Cos; N Vidal; G Plans; J Bruna; R Perez-Lopez; C Majos Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrea Romano; Giulia Moltoni; Alessia Guarnera; Luca Pasquini; Alberto Di Napoli; Antonio Napolitano; Maria Camilla Rossi Espagnet; Alessandro Bozzao Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 6.313
Authors: Lelio Guida; Vittorio Stumpo; 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: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 6.639