B Testud1, G Brun2, A Varoquaux3, J F Hak2, R Appay4,5, A Le Troter6,7, N Girard2,6, J P Stellmann6,7. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, APHM La Timone, 264 Saint Pierre Street, 13385, CEDEX 05, Marseille, France. Benoit.TESTUD@ap-hm.fr. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, APHM La Timone, 264 Saint Pierre Street, 13385, CEDEX 05, Marseille, France. 3. APHM La Conception, Department of Medical Imaging, Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France. 4. Department of Pathology and Neuropathology, APHM La Timone, Marseille, France. 5. Aix-Marseille Univ, CNRS, INP, Inst Neurophysiopathol, Marseille, France. 6. Aix-Marseille Univ, CNRS, CRMBM, UMR 7339, Marseille, France. 7. APHM La Timone, CEMEREM, Marseille, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) and arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion MRI are applied in pediatric brain tumor grading, but their value for clinical daily practice remains unclear. We explored the ability of ASL and DSC to distinguish low- and high-grade lesions, in an unselected cohort of pediatric cerebral tumors. METHODS: We retrospectively compared standard perfusion outcomes including blood volume, blood flow, and time parameters from DSC and ASL at 1.5T or 3T MRI scanners of 46 treatment-naive patients by drawing ROI via consensus by two neuroradiologists on the solid portions of every tumor. The discriminant abilities of perfusion parameters were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) over the entire cohort and depending on the tumor location and the magnetic field. RESULTS: ASL and DSC parameters showed overall low to moderate performances to distinguish low- and high-grade tumors (area under the curve: between 0.548 and 0.697). Discriminant abilities were better for tumors located supratentorially (AUC between 0.777 and 0.810) than infratentorially, where none of the metrics reached significance. We observed a better differentiation between low- and high-grade cancers at 3T than at 1.5-T. For infratentorial tumors, time parameters from DSC performed better than the commonly used metrics (AUC ≥ 0.8). CONCLUSION: DSC and ASL show moderate abilities to distinguish low- and high-grade brain tumors in an unselected cohort. Absolute value of K2, TMAX, tMIP, and normalized value of TMAX of the DSC appear as an alternative to conventional parameters for infratentorial tumors. Three Tesla evaluation should be favored over 1.5-Tesla.
PURPOSE: Dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) and arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion MRI are applied in pediatric brain tumor grading, but their value for clinical daily practice remains unclear. We explored the ability of ASL and DSC to distinguish low- and high-grade lesions, in an unselected cohort of pediatric cerebral tumors. METHODS: We retrospectively compared standard perfusion outcomes including blood volume, blood flow, and time parameters from DSC and ASL at 1.5T or 3T MRI scanners of 46 treatment-naive patients by drawing ROI via consensus by two neuroradiologists on the solid portions of every tumor. The discriminant abilities of perfusion parameters were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) over the entire cohort and depending on the tumor location and the magnetic field. RESULTS: ASL and DSC parameters showed overall low to moderate performances to distinguish low- and high-grade tumors (area under the curve: between 0.548 and 0.697). Discriminant abilities were better for tumors located supratentorially (AUC between 0.777 and 0.810) than infratentorially, where none of the metrics reached significance. We observed a better differentiation between low- and high-grade cancers at 3T than at 1.5-T. For infratentorial tumors, time parameters from DSC performed better than the commonly used metrics (AUC ≥ 0.8). CONCLUSION: DSC and ASL show moderate abilities to distinguish low- and high-grade brain tumors in an unselected cohort. Absolute value of K2, TMAX, tMIP, and normalized value of TMAX of the DSC appear as an alternative to conventional parameters for infratentorial tumors. Three Tesla evaluation should be favored over 1.5-Tesla.
Authors: Yi Sui; He Wang; Guanzhong Liu; Frederick W Damen; Christian Wanamaker; Yuhua Li; Xiaohong Joe Zhou Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Haley Gittleman; Peter Liao; Toni Vecchione-Koval; Yingli Wolinsky; Carol Kruchko; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Javier Vicente; Elies Fuster-Garcia; Salvador Tortajada; Juan M García-Gómez; Nigel Davies; Kal Natarajan; Martin Wilson; Richard G Grundy; Pieter Wesseling; Daniel Monleón; Bernardo Celda; Montserrat Robles; Andrew C Peet Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: A A Tzika; L G Astrakas; M K Zarifi; N Petridou; T Young-Poussaint; L Goumnerova; D Zurakowski; D C Anthony; P McL Black Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2002-11-20 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Gülin Oz; Jeffry R Alger; Peter B Barker; Robert Bartha; Alberto Bizzi; Chris Boesch; Patrick J Bolan; Kevin M Brindle; Cristina Cudalbu; Alp Dinçer; Ulrike Dydak; Uzay E Emir; Jens Frahm; Ramón Gilberto González; Stephan Gruber; Rolf Gruetter; Rakesh K Gupta; Arend Heerschap; Anke Henning; Hoby P Hetherington; Franklyn A Howe; Petra S Hüppi; Ralph E Hurd; Kantarci Kantarci; Dennis W J Klomp; Roland Kreis; Marijn J Kruiskamp; Martin O Leach; Alexander P Lin; Peter R Luijten; Malgorzata Marjańska; Andrew A Maudsley; Dieter J Meyerhoff; Carolyn E Mountford; Sarah J Nelson; M Necmettin Pamir; Jullie W Pan; Andrew C Peet; Harish Poptani; Stefan Posse; Petra J W Pouwels; Eva-Maria Ratai; Brian D Ross; Tom W Scheenen; Christian Schuster; Ian C P Smith; Brian J Soher; Ivan Tkáč; Daniel B Vigneron; Risto A Kauppinen Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 11.105