M Seo1, K-J Ahn2, Y Choi1, N-Y Shin1, J Jang1, B-S Kim1. 1. From the Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. From the Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea ahn-kj@catholic.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: T1-PWI with high temporal resolution may provide a reliable relative CBV value as a valid alternative to T2*-PWI under increased susceptibility. The purpose of this study was to assess the technical and clinical performance of T1-relative CBV in patients with postoperative high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five MRIs of 34 patients with proved high-grade gliomas were included. In all MRIs, T1- and T2*-PWIs were both acquired and processed semiautomatically to generate relative CBV maps using a released commercial software. Lesion masks were overlaid on the relative CBV maps, followed by a histogram of the whole VOI. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots were used for quantitative and qualitative comparisons. Signal loss from both methods was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test of zero voxel percentage. The MRIs were divided into a progression group (n = 20) and a nonprogression group (n = 14) for receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Fair intertechnique consistency was observed between the 90th percentiles of the T1- and T2*-relative CBV values (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.558, P < .001). T2*-PWI revealed a significantly higher percentage of near-zero voxels than T1-PWI (17.7% versus 3.1%, P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference between the area under the curve of T1- and T2*-relative CBV (0.811 versus 0.793, P = .835). T1-relative CBV showed 100% sensitivity and 57.1% specificity for the detection of progressive lesions. CONCLUSIONS: T1-relative CBV demonstrated exquisite diagnostic performance for detecting progressive lesions in postoperative patients with high-grade gliomas, suggesting the potential role of T1-PWI as a valid alternative to the traditional T2*-PWI.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: T1-PWI with high temporal resolution may provide a reliable relative CBV value as a valid alternative to T2*-PWI under increased susceptibility. The purpose of this study was to assess the technical and clinical performance of T1-relative CBV in patients with postoperative high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five MRIs of 34 patients with proved high-grade gliomas were included. In all MRIs, T1- and T2*-PWIs were both acquired and processed semiautomatically to generate relative CBV maps using a released commercial software. Lesion masks were overlaid on the relative CBV maps, followed by a histogram of the whole VOI. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots were used for quantitative and qualitative comparisons. Signal loss from both methods was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test of zero voxel percentage. The MRIs were divided into a progression group (n = 20) and a nonprogression group (n = 14) for receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Fair intertechnique consistency was observed between the 90th percentiles of the T1- and T2*-relative CBV values (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.558, P < .001). T2*-PWI revealed a significantly higher percentage of near-zero voxels than T1-PWI (17.7% versus 3.1%, P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference between the area under the curve of T1- and T2*-relative CBV (0.811 versus 0.793, P = .835). T1-relative CBV showed 100% sensitivity and 57.1% specificity for the detection of progressive lesions. CONCLUSIONS: T1-relative CBV demonstrated exquisite diagnostic performance for detecting progressive lesions in postoperative patients with high-grade gliomas, suggesting the potential role of T1-PWI as a valid alternative to the traditional T2*-PWI.
Authors: Meng Law; Stanley Yang; James S Babb; Edmond A Knopp; John G Golfinos; David Zagzag; Glyn Johnson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Bhaswati Roy; Rakesh K Gupta; Andrew A Maudsley; Rishi Awasthi; Sulaiman Sheriff; Meng Gu; Nuzhat Husain; Sudipta Mohakud; Sanjay Behari; Chandra M Pandey; Ram K S Rathore; Daniel M Spielman; Jeffry R Alger Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-02-02 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Seymur Gahramanov; Leslie L Muldoon; Csanad G Varallyay; Xin Li; Dale F Kraemer; Rongwei Fu; Bronwyn E Hamilton; William D Rooney; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T B Nguyen; G O Cron; K Perdrizet; K Bezzina; C H Torres; S Chakraborty; J Woulfe; G H Jansen; J Sinclair; R E Thornhill; C Foottit; B Zanette; I G Cameron Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 3.825