The Predictive Value of 3D Time-of-Flight MR Angiography in Assessment of Brain Arteriovenous Malformation Obliteration after Radiosurgery

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Friedlander RM

   . Clinical practice: arteriovenous malformations of the brain. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 2704– 12

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Maruyama K,
   2. Kawahara N,
   3. Shin M,
   4. et al

   . The risk of hemorrhage after radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 146– 53

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Heiserman JE,
   2. Dean BL,
   3. Hodak JA,
   4. et al

   . Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994; 15: 1401– 07

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Dion JE,
   2. Gates PC,
   3. Fox AJ,
   4. et al

   . Clinical events following neuroangiography: a prospective study. Stroke 1987; 18: 997– 1004

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Earnest F,
   2. Forbes G,
   3. Sandok BA,
   4. et al

   . Complications of cerebral angiography: prospective assessment of risk. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984; 142: 247– 53

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Komiyama M,
   2. Yamanaka K,
   3. Nishikawa M,
   4. et al

   . Prospective analysis of complications of catheter cerebral angiography in the digital subtraction angiography and magnetic resonance era. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 1998; 38: 534– 39

   PubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Dawkins AA,
   2. Evans AL,
   3. Wattam J,
   4. et al

   . Complications of cerebral angiography: a prospective analysis of 2,924 consecutive procedures. Neuroradiology 2007; 49: 753– 59

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Grzyska U,
   2. Freitag J,
   3. Zeumer H

   . Selective cerebral intraarterial DSA. Complication rate and control of risk factors. Neuroradiology 1990; 32: 296– 99

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Bendszus M,
   2. Koltzenburg M,
   3. Burger R,
   4. et al

   . Silent embolism in diagnostic cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures: a prospective study. Lancet 1999; 354: 1594– 97

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Morcos SK,
    2. Thomsen HS

    . Adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1267– 75

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Ketkar M,
    2. Shrier D

    . An allergic reaction to intraarterial nonionic contrast material. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24: 292

    FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. King-Im JM,
    2. Trivedi R,
    3. Cross J,
    4. et al

    . Conventional digital subtraction x-ray angiography versus magnetic resonance angiography in the evaluation of carotid disease: patient satisfaction and preferences. Clin Radiol 2004; 59: 358– 63

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Thierry-Chef I,
    2. Simon S,
    3. Miller D

    . Radiation dose and cancer risk among pediatric patients undergoing interventional neuroradiology procedures. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36: 159– 62

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Swoboda NA,
    2. Armstrong DG,
    3. Smith J,
    4. et al

    . Pediatric patient surface doses in neuroangiography. Pediatr Radiol 2005; 35: 859– 66

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Raelson CA,
    2. Kanal KM,
    3. Vavilala MS,
    4. et al

    . Radiation dose and excess risk of cancer in children undergoing neuroangiography. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 1621– 28

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Stein SC,
    2. Burnett MG,
    3. Zager EL,
    4. et al

    . Completion angiography for surgically treated cerebral aneurysms: an economic analysis. Neurosurgery 2007; 61: 1162– 67

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Giesel FL,
    2. Essig M,
    3. Zabel-Du-Bois A,
    4. et al

    . High-contrast computed tomographic angiography better detects residual intracranial arteriovenous malformations in long-term follow-up after radiotherapy than 1.5-Tesla time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography. Acta Radiol 2010; 51: 64– 70

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Eddleman CS,
    2. Jeong HJ,
    3. Hurley MC,
    4. et al

    . 4D radial acquisition contrast-enhanced MR angiography and intracranial arteriovenous malformations: quickly approaching digital subtraction angiography. Stroke 2009; 40: 2749– 53

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Hadizadeh DR,
    2. von Falkenhausen M,
    3. Gieseke J,
    4. et al

    . Cerebral arteriovenous malformation: Spetzler-Martin classification at subsecond-temporal-resolution four-dimensional MR angiography compared with that at DSA. Radiology 2008; 246: 205– 13. Epub 2007 Oct 19

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Reinacher PC,
    2. Stracke P,
    3. Reinges MH,
    4. et al

    . Contrast-enhanced time-resolved 3-D MRA: applications in neurosurgery and interventional neuroradiology. Neuroradiology 2007; 49 (suppl 1): S3– 13

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Taschner CA,
    2. Gieseke J,
    3. Le Thuc V,
    4. et al

    . Intracranial arteriovenous malformation: time-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography with combination of parallel imaging, keyhole acquisition, and k-space sampling techniques at 1.5 T. Radiology 2008; 246: 871– 79. Epub 2008 Jan 14

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Weintraub MI,
    2. Khoury A,
    3. Cole SP

    . Biologic effects of 3 Tesla (T) MR imaging comparing traditional 1.5 T and 0.6 T in 1023 consecutive outpatients. J Neuroimaging 2007; 17: 241– 45

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Han JH,
    2. Kim DG,
    3. Chung HT,
    4. et al

    . Clinical and neuroimaging outcome of cerebral arteriovenous malformations after gamma knife surgery: analysis of the radiation injury rate depending on the arteriovenous malformation volume. J Neurosurg 2008; 109: 191– 98

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Douglas JG,
    2. Goodkin R

    . Treatment of arteriovenous malformations using gamma knife surgery: the experience at the University of Washington from 2000 to 2005. J Neurosurg 2008; 109 (suppl): 51– 56

    PubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Kasliwal MK,
    2. Kale SS,
    3. Gupta A,
    4. et al

    . Outcome after hemorrhage following gamma knife surgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 2009; 110: 1003– 09

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Kiran N,
    2. Kale S,
    3. Kasliwal M,
    4. et al

    . Gamma knife radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations of basal ganglia, thalamus and brainstem: a retrospective study comparing the results with that for AVMs at other intracranial locations. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2009; 151: 1575– 82. Epub 2009 May 5

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Buis DR,
    2. Dirven CM,
    3. Lagerwaard FJ,
    4. et al

    . Radiosurgery of brain arteriovenous malformations in children. J Neurol 2008; 255: 551– 60

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Lunsford LD

    1. Lindquist C,
    2. Steiner L

    . Stereotactic radiosurgical treatment of arteriovenous malformations. In: Lunsford LD ed. Modern Stereotactic Neurosurgery. Boston, Massachusetts: Martinus Nijhoff; 1988:491–505
29. 29.↵
    1. Steinberg GK,
    2. Fabrikant JI,
    3. Marks MP,
    4. et al

    . Stereotactic heavy-charged-particle Bragg-peak radiation for intracranial arteriovenous malformations. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 96– 101

    PubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Spetzler RF,
    2. Martin NA

    . A proposed grading system for arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 1986; 65: 476– 83

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    1. Petkova M,
    2. Gauvrit JY,
    3. Trystram D,
    4. et al

    . Three-dimensional dynamic time-resolved contrast-enhanced MRA using parallel imaging and a variable rate k-space sampling strategy in intracranial arteriovenous malformations. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 29: 7– 12

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Kunishima K,
    2. Mori H,
    3. Itoh D,
    4. et al

    . Assessment of arteriovenous malformations with 3-Tesla time-resolved, contrast-enhanced, three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography. J Neurosurg 2009; 110: 492– 99

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Saleh RS,
    2. Lohan DG,
    3. Villablanca JP,
    4. et al

    . Assessment of craniospinal arteriovenous malformations at 3T with highly temporally and highly spatially resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008; 29: 1024– 31

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
34. 34.↵
    1. Heidenreich JO,
    2. Schilling AM,
    3. Unterharnscheidt F,
    4. et al

    . Assessment of 3D-TOF-MRA at 3.0 Tesla in the characterization of the angioarchitecture of cerebral arteriovenous malformations: a preliminary study. Acta Radiol 2007; 48: 678– 86

    FREE Full Text
35. 35.↵
    1. Pollock BE,
    2. Flickinger JC

    . Modification of the radiosurgery-based arteriovenous malformation grading system. Neurosurgery 2008; 63: 239– 43

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Metz C

    . ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature. Radiol Phys Technol 2008; 1: 2– 12

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Spetzler RF,
    2. Hargraves RW,
    3. McCormick PW,
    4. et al

    . Relationship of perfusion pressure and size to risk of hemorrhage from arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 1992; 76: 918– 23

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
38. 38.↵
    1. Oppenheim C,
    2. Meder JF,
    3. Trystram D,
    4. et al

    . Radiosurgery of cerebral arteriovenous malformations: is an early angiogram needed? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999; 20: 475– 81

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    1. Buis DR,
    2. Lagerwaard FJ,
    3. Dirven CM,
    4. et al

    . Delineation of brain AVMs on MR-angiography for the purpose of stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67: 308– 16

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Pollock BE,
    2. Kondziolka D,
    3. Flickinger JC,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging: an accurate method to evaluate arteriovenous malformations after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurosurg 1996; 85: 1044– 49

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Gauvrit JY,
    2. Oppenheim C,
    3. Nataf F,
    4. et al

    . Three-dimensional dynamic magnetic resonance angiography for the evaluation of radiosurgically treated cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 583– 91

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Mukherji SK,
    2. Quisling RG,
    3. Kubilis PS,
    4. et al

    . Intracranial arteriovenous malformations: quantitative analysis of magnitude contrast MR angiography versus gradient-echo MR imaging versus conventional angiography. Radiology 1995; 196: 187– 93

    PubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Stock KW,
    2. Wetzel S,
    3. Kirsch E,
    4. et al

    . Anatomic evaluation of the circle of Willis: MR angiography versus intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996; 17: 1495– 99

    Abstract
44. 44.↵
    1. Buis DR,
    2. van den Berg R,
    3. Lagerwaard FJ,
    4. et al

    . Brain arteriovenous malformations: from diagnosis to treatment. J Neurosurg Sci 2011; 55: 39– 56

    PubMed
45. 45.↵
    1. Nowinski WL,
    2. Puspitasaari F,
    3. Volkau I,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of magnetic resonance angiography scans on 1.5, 3, and 7 Tesla units: a quantitative study of 3-dimensional cerebrovasculature. J Neuroimaging 2011 Mar 29. [Epub ahead of print]
46. 46.↵
    1. Saleh RS,
    2. Singhal A,
    3. Lohan D,
    4. et al

    . Assessment of cerebral arteriovenous malformations with high temporal and spatial resolution contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: a review from protocol to clinical application. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 19: 251– 57

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    1. Lee KE,
    2. Choi CG,
    3. Choi JW,
    4. et al

    . Detection of residual brain arteriovenous malformations after radiosurgery: diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional time of flight MR angiography at 3.0 Tesla. Korean J Radiol 2009; 10: 333– 39

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    1. Ozsarlak O,
    2. Van Goethem JW,
    3. Maes M,
    4. et al

    . MR angiography of the intracranial vessels: technical aspects and clinical applications. Neuroradiology 2004; 46: 955– 72

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
49. 49.↵
    1. Unlu E,
    2. Temizoz O,
    3. Albayram S,
    4. et al

    . Contrast-enhanced MR 3D angiography in the assessment of brain AVMs. Eur J Radiol 2006; 60: 367– 78

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    1. Parmar H,
    2. Ivancevic MK,
    3. Dudek N,
    4. et al

    . Neuroradiologic applications of dynamic MR angiography at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2009; 17: 63– 75

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    1. Yen CP,
    2. Varady P,
    3. Sheehan J,
    4. et al

    . Subtotal obliteration of cerebral arteriovenous malformations after gamma knife surgery. J Neurosurg 2007; 106: 361– 69

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    1. Buis DR,
    2. van den Berg R,
    3. Lycklama G,
    4. et al

    . Spontaneous regression of brain arteriovenous malformations: a clinical study and a systematic review of the literature. J Neurol 2004; 251: 1375– 82

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    1. van den Berg R,
    2. Buis DR,
    3. Lagerwaard FJ,
    4. et al

    . Extensive white matter changes after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain arteriovenous malformations: a prognostic sign for obliteration? Neurosurgery 2008; 63: 1064– 69

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    1. Schaller C,
    2. Schramm J

    . Arteriovenous malformations and magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 1997; 87: 647– 49

    PubMed
55. 55.↵
    1. Buis DR,
    2. Meijer OW,
    3. van den Berg R,
    4. et al

    . Clinical outcome after repeated radiosurgery for brain arteriovenous malformations. Radiother Oncol 2010; 95: 250– 56

    CrossRefPubMed