Optimization of DSC MRI Echo Times for CBV Measurements Using Error Analysis in a Pilot Study of High-Grade Gliomas

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Fink JR,
   3. Muzi M,
   4. Peck M, et al

   . Multimodality brain tumor imaging: MR imaging, PET, and PET/MR imaging. J Nucl Med 2015;56:1554–61 doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.131516 pmid:26294301

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Boxerman JL,
   3. Ellingson BM,
   4. Jeyapalan S, et al

   . Longitudinal DSC-MRI for distinguishing tumor recurrence from pseudoprogression in patients with a high-grade glioma. Am J Clin Oncol 2017;40:228–34 doi:10.1097/COC.0000000000000156 pmid:25436828

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Ellingson BM,
   3. Zaw T,
   4. Cloughesy TF, et al

   . Comparison between intensity normalization techniques for dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC)-MRI estimates of cerebral blood volume (CBV) in human gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;35:1472–77 doi:10.1002/jmri.23600 pmid:22281731

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Chaskis C,
   3. Stadnik T,
   4. Michotte A, et al

   . Prognostic value of perfusion-weighted imaging in brain glioma: a prospective study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006;148:277–85; discussion 285 doi:10.1007/s00701-005-0718-9 pmid:16421765

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Maia AC Jr.,
   3. Malheiros SM,
   4. da Rocha AJ, et al

   . Stereotactic biopsy guidance in adults with supratentorial nonenhancing gliomas: role of perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 2004;101:970–76 doi:10.3171/jns.2004.101.6.0970 pmid:15597757

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Barajas RF Jr.,
   3. Chang JS,
   4. Segal MR, et al

   . Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009;253:486–96 doi:10.1148/radiol.2532090007 pmid:19789240

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Hu LS,
   3. Baxter LC,
   4. Smith KA, et al

   . Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:552–58 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1377 pmid:19056837

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Danchaivijitr N,
   3. Waldman AD,
   4. Tozer DJ, et al

   . Low-grade gliomas: do changes in rCBV measurements at longitudinal perfusion-weighted MR imaging predict malignant transformation? Radiology 2008;247:170–78 doi:10.1148/radiol.2471062089 pmid:18372467

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Rossi Espagnet MC,
   3. Romano A,
   4. Mancuso V, et al

   . Multiparametric evaluation of low grade gliomas at follow-up: comparison between diffusion and perfusion MR with ¹⁸ F-FDOPA PET. Br J Radiol 2016;89:20160476 doi:10.1259/bjr.20160476 pmid:27505026

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Boxerman JL,
    3. Rosen BR,
    4. Weisskoff RM

    . Signal-to-noise analysis of cerebral blood volume maps from dynamic NMR imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:528–37 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880070313 pmid:9170038

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Welker K,
    3. Boxerman J,
    4. Kalnin A, et al

    ; American Society of Functional Neuroradiology MR Perfusion Standards and Practice Subcommittee of the ASFNR Clinical Practice Committee. ASFNR recommendations for clinical performance of MR dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:E41–51 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4341 pmid:25907520

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Willats L,
    3. Calamante F

    . The 39 steps: evading error and deciphering the secrets for accurate dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. NMR Biomed 2013;26:913–31 doi:10.1002/nbm.2833 pmid:22782914

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Thilmann O,
    3. Larsson EM,
    4. Björkman-Burtscher I, et al

    . Effects of echo time variation on perfusion assessment using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging 2004;22:929–35 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2004.01.079 pmid:15288133

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Jochimsen TH,
    3. Newbould RD,
    4. Skare ST, et al

    . Identifying systematic errors in quantitative dynamic-susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging by high-resolution multi-echo parallel EPI. NMR Biomed 2007;20:429–38 doi:10.1002/nbm.1107 pmid:17044140

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Woolrich MW,
    3. Jbabdi S,
    4. Patenaude B, et al

    . Bayesian analysis of neuroimaging data in FSL. Neuroimage 2009;45:S173–86 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.055 pmid:19059349

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Schmainda KM,
    3. Paulson ES,
    4. Prah DE

    , inventors; Imaging Biometrics Llc, assignee. Multiparameter perfusion imaging with leakage correction. US patent 8670602. May 22, 2007
17. 17.↵
    2. Newton AT,
    3. Skinner JT,
    4. Quarles CC

    . Automatic AIF estimation in multi-echo DSC-MRI of pediatric patients: avoiding the noise floor. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. April 20–26, 2013;21
18. 18.↵
    2. Mouridsen K,
    3. Christensen S,
    4. Gyldensted L, et al

    . Automatic selection of arterial input function using cluster analysis. Magn Reson Med 2006;55:524–31 doi:10.1002/mrm.20759 pmid:16453314

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Semmineh NB,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Skinner JT, et al

    . Assessing tumor cytoarchitecture using multiecho DSC-MRI derived measures of the transverse relaxivity at tracer equilibrium (TRATE). Magn Reson Med 2015;74:772–84 doi:10.1002/mrm.25435 pmid:25227668

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Newbould RD,
    3. Skare ST,
    4. Jochimsen TH, et al

    . Perfusion mapping with multiecho multishot parallel imaging EPI. Magn Reson Med 2007;58:70–81 doi:10.1002/mrm.21255 pmid:17659630

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Stokes AM,
    3. Quarles CC

    . A simplified spin and gradient echo approach for brain tumor perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2016;75:356–62 doi:10.1002/mrm.25591 pmid:25753958

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Weinmann HJ,
    3. Bauer H,
    4. Ebert W, et al

    . Comparative studies on the efficacy of MRI contrast agents in MRA. Acad Radiol 2002;9:S135–36 doi:10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80419-1 pmid:12019849

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Pintaske J,
    3. Martirosian P,
    4. Graf H, et al

    . Relaxivity of gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadobutrol (Gadovist), and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:213–21 doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000197668.44926.f7 pmid:16481903

    CrossRefPubMed