MRI Evaluation of Non-Necrotic T2-Hyperintense Foci in Pediatric Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Ostrom QT,
   3. Gittleman H,
   4. Liao P, et al

   . CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2007–2011. Neuro Oncol 2014;16(suppl 4):iv1–iv63 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou223 pmid:25304271

   FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Warren KE

   . Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: poised for progress. Front Oncol 2012;2:205 doi:10.3389/fonc.2012.00205 pmid:23293772

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Broniscer A,
   3. Baker JN,
   4. Tagen M, et al

   . Phase I study of vandetanib during and after radiotherapy in children with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4762–68 doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.30.3545 pmid:20921456

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Broniscer A,
   3. Baker SD,
   4. Wetmore C, et al

   . Phase I trial, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of vandetanib and dasatinib in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:3050–58 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0306 pmid:23536435

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   2. Poussaint TY,
   3. Kocak M,
   4. Vajapeyam S, et al

   . MRI as a central component of clinical trials analysis in brainstem glioma: a report from the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium (PBTC). Neuro Oncol 2011;13:417–27 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noq200 pmid:21297126

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Jansen MH,
   3. Veldhuijzen van Zanten SE,
   4. Sanchez Aliaga E, et al

   . Survival prediction model of children with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma based on clinical and radiological criteria. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:160–66 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou104 pmid:24903904

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Hargrave D,
   3. Chuang N,
   4. Bouffet E

   . Conventional MRI cannot predict survival in childhood diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. J Neurooncol 2008;86:313–19 pmid:17909941

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Löbel U,
   3. Sedlacik J,
   4. Reddick WE, et al

   . Quantitative diffusion-weighted and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging analysis of T2 hypointense lesion components in pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:315–22 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2277 pmid:21087935

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Conway AE,
   3. Reddick WE,
   4. Li Y, et al

   . “Occult” post-contrast signal enhancement in pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma is the MRI marker of angiogenesis? Neuroradiology 2014;56:405–12 doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1348-9 pmid:24626721

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Paulson ES,
    3. Schmainda KM

    . Comparison of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR methods: recommendations for measuring relative cerebral blood volume in brain tumors. Radiology 2008;249:601–13 doi:10.1148/radiol.2492071659 pmid:18780827

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Hu LS,
    3. Baxter LC,
    4. Pinnaduwage DS, et al

    . Optimized preload leakage-correction methods to improve the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in posttreatment gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:40–48 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1787 pmid:19749223

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Boxerman JL,
    3. Prah DE,
    4. Paulson ES, et al

    . The role of preload and leakage correction in gadolinium-based cerebral blood volume estimation determined by comparison with MION as a criterion standard. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1081–87 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2934 pmid:22322605

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Tofts PS,
    3. Brix G,
    4. Buckley DL, et al

    . Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223–32 pmid:10508281

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Parker GJM,
    3. Roberts C,
    4. Macdonald A, et al

    . Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006;56:993–1000 doi:10.1002/mrm.21066 pmid:17036301

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Harreld JH,
    3. Helton KJ,
    4. Kaddoum RN, et al

    . The effects of propofol on cerebral perfusion MRI in children. Neuroradiology 2013;55:1049–56 doi:10.1007/s00234-013-1187-0 pmid:23673874

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Ellingson BM,
    3. Bendszus M,
    4. Boxerman J, et al

    ; Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition Imaging Standardization Steering Committee. Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1188–98 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov095 pmid:26250565

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Just N

    . Improving tumour heterogeneity MRI assessment with histograms. Br J Cancer 2014;111:2205–13 doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.512 pmid:25268373

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Löbel U,
    3. Sedlacik J,
    4. Sabin ND, et al

    . Three-dimensional susceptibility-weighted imaging and two-dimensional T2*-weighted gradient-echo imaging of intratumoral hemorrhages in pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. Neuroradiology 2010;52:1167–77 doi:10.1007/s00234-010-0771-9 pmid:20878319

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Just N

    . Histogram analysis of the microvasculature of intracerebral human and murine glioma xenografts. Magn Reson Med 2011;65:778–89 doi:10.1002/mrm.22675 pmid:21337410

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Young R,
    4. Babb J, et al

    . Histogram analysis versus region of interest analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging data in the grading of cerebral gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:761–66 pmid:17416835

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Pope WB,
    3. Kim HJ,
    4. Huo J, et al

    . Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: ADC histogram analysis predicts response to bevacizumab treatment. Radiology 2009;252:182–89 doi:10.1148/radiol.2521081534 pmid:19561256

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Pope WB,
    3. Qiao XJ,
    4. Kim HJ, et al

    . Apparent diffusion coefficient histogram analysis stratifies progression-free and overall survival in patients with recurrent GBM treated with bevacizumab: a multi-center study. J Neurooncol 2012;108:491–98 doi:10.1007/s11060-012-0847-y pmid:22426926

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Steffen-Smith EA,
    3. Sarlls JE,
    4. Pierpaoli C, et al

    . Diffusion tensor histogram analysis of pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:647356 doi:10.1155/2014/647356 pmid:25006580

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Poussaint TY,
    3. Vajapeyam S,
    4. Ricci KI, et al

    . Apparent diffusion coefficient histogram metrics correlate with survival in diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: a report from the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium. Neuro Oncol 2015 Oct 20. [Epub ahead of print] pmid:26487690
25. 25.↵
    2. Sugahara T,
    3. Korogi Y,
    4. Kochi M, et al

    . Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;9:53–60 pmid:10030650

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Lober RM,
    3. Cho YJ,
    4. Tang Y, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted MRI derived apparent diffusion coefficient identifies prognostically distinct subgroups of pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. J Neurooncol 2014;117:175–82 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1375-8 pmid:24522717

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Chen HJ,
    3. Panigrahy A,
    4. Dhall G, et al

    . Apparent diffusion and fractional anisotropy of diffuse intrinsic brain stem gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1879–85 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2179 pmid:20595371

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    2. Al-Okaili RN,
    3. Krejza J,
    4. Woo JH, et al

    . Intraaxial brain masses: MR imaging–based diagnostic strategy—initial experience. Radiology 2007;243:539–50 doi:10.1148/radiol.2432060493 pmid:17456876

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Yang S,
    4. Wang H, et al

    . Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1989–98 pmid:14625221

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Young RJ,
    4. Babb JS, et al

    . Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2008;247:490–98 doi:10.1148/radiol.2472070898 pmid:18349315

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Cha S

    . Dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in pediatric patients. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2006;16:137–47, ix doi:10.1016/j.nic.2005.11.006 pmid:16543089

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Roberts HC,
    3. Roberts TP,
    4. Brasch RC, et al

    . Quantitative measurement of microvascular permeability in human brain tumors achieved using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histologic grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:891–99 pmid:10815665

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    2. Schumacher M,
    3. Schulte-Mönting J,
    4. Stoeter P, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy in the diagnosis of brainstem diseases of childhood: a multicenter review. J Neurosurg 2007;106(2 suppl):111–19 doi:10.3171/jns.2007.106.1.111 pmid:17330536

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
34. 34.↵
    2. Yoshimura J,
    3. Onda K,
    4. Tanaka R, et al

    . Clinicopathological study of diffuse type brainstem gliomas: analysis of 40 autopsy cases. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2003;43:375–82; discussion 382 pmid:12968803

    CrossRefPubMed