Literature DB >> 31974077

Effects of Susceptibility Artifacts on Perfusion MRI in Patients with Primary Brain Tumor: A Comparison of Arterial Spin-Labeling versus DSC.

H Maral1, E Ertekin2, Ö Tunçyürek2,3, Y Özsunar2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Our aim was to investigate the effects of intratumoral hemorrhage, calcification, and postoperative changes on the sensitivity of arterial spin-labeling and DSC perfusion MR imaging in patients with primary brain tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-six brain tumor lesions were examined with single-phase and multiphase arterial spin-labeling and DSC perfusion MR imaging. The lesions that had no intratumoral bleeding/calcifications and history of surgery were assigned to group 1 (n = 38), and the lesions that had these were assigned to group 2 (n = 48). The relative regional cerebral blood flow was calculated in both perfusion methods, and relative regional cerebral blood volume was calculated in DSC. Imaging results were correlated with histopathology or follow-up.
RESULTS: In the quantitative evaluation, the sensitivity and specificity of relative regional cerebral blood flow in multiphase arterial spin-labeling perfusion were 94.4% and 80% in group 1 and 78.3% and 88% in group 2, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of relative regional cerebral blood flow in DSC perfusion were 88.9% and 75% in group 1 and 78.3% and 84% in group 2, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of relative regional cerebral blood volume in DSC perfusion were 66.7% and 100% in group 1 and 69.6% and 96% in group 2, respectively. In the qualitative evaluation, the sensitivities for single-phase and multiphase arterial spin-labeling were 48.2% and 79.3%, respectively, with 100% specificity for both.
CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity and specificity of multiphase arterial spin-labeling were similar to those of DSC perfusion irrespective of bleeding and calcification in primary brain tumors. Thus, we suggest that noncontrast multiphase arterial spin-labeling can be used instead of DSC perfusion MR imaging in the diagnosis and follow-up of intracranial tumors.
© 2020 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31974077      PMCID: PMC7015218          DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A6384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  24 in total

1.  Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Carsten Warmuth; Matthias Gunther; Claus Zimmer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-06-20       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Quantification of arterial cerebral blood volume using multiphase-balanced SSFP-based ASL.

Authors:  Lirong Yan; Cheng Li; Emily Kilroy; Felix W Wehrli; Danny J J Wang
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 3.  The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary.

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

4.  Assessment of irradiated brain metastases by means of arterial spin-labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: initial results.

Authors:  Marc-André Weber; Christoph Thilmann; Matthias P Lichy; Matthias Günther; Stefan Delorme; Ivan Zuna; André Bongers; Lothar R Schad; Jürgen Debus; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Marco Essig; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 6.016

5.  Glial tumor grading and outcome prediction using dynamic spin-echo MR susceptibility mapping compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR: confounding effect of elevated rCBV of oligodendrogliomas [corrected].

Authors:  Michael H Lev; Yelda Ozsunar; John W Henson; Amjad A Rasheed; Glenn D Barest; Griffith R Harsh; Markus M Fitzek; E Antonio Chiocca; James D Rabinov; Andrew N Csavoy; Bruce R Rosen; Fred H Hochberg; Pamela W Schaefer; R Gilberto Gonzalez
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging.

Authors:  Young Jun Choi; Ho Sung Kim; Geon-Ho Jahng; Sang Joon Kim; Dae Chul Suh
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 1.990

Review 7.  Arterial spin-labeled MR perfusion imaging: clinical applications.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Pollock; Huan Tan; Robert A Kraft; Christopher T Whitlow; Jonathan H Burdette; Joseph A Maldjian
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.266

8.  Assesment of perfusion in glial tumors with arterial spin labeling; comparison with dynamic susceptibility contrast method.

Authors:  H Cebeci; O Aydin; E Ozturk-Isik; C Gumus; F Inecikli; A Bekar; H Kocaeli; B Hakyemez
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 3.528

9.  Comparison between dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging and arterial spin labeling techniques in distinguishing malignant from benign brain tumors.

Authors:  Emine Sevcan Ata; Mehmet Turgut; Cenk Eraslan; Yelda Özsunar Dayanır
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 3.528

10.  Uninterpretable Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced Perfusion MR Images in Patients with Post-Treatment Glioblastomas: Cross-Validation of Alternative Imaging Options.

Authors:  Young Jin Heo; Ho Sung Kim; Ji Eun Park; Choong-Gon Choi; Sang Joon Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.