Multisite Concordance of DSC-MRI Analysis for Brain Tumors: Results of a National Cancer Institute Quantitative Imaging Network Collaborative Project

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Wen PY,
   3. Macdonald DR,
   4. Reardon DA, et al

   . Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963–72 doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 pmid:20231676

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Brandsma D,
   3. van den Bent MJ

   . Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse in the treatment of gliomas. Curr Opin Neurol 2009;22:633–38 doi:10.1097/WCO.0b013e328332363e pmid:19770760

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Wen PY,
   3. Norden AD,
   4. Drappatz J, et al

   . Response assessment challenges in clinical trials of gliomas. Curr Oncol Rep 2010;12:68–75 doi:10.1007/s11912-009-0078-3 pmid:20425610

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Macdonald DR,
   3. Cascino TL,
   4. Schold SC Jr., et al

   . Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1277–80 doi:10.1200/JCO.1990.8.7.1277 pmid:2358840

   Abstract
5. 5.↵
   2. Vymazal J,
   3. Wong EY

   . Response patterns of recurrent glioblastomas treated with tumor-treating fields. Semin Oncol 2014;41(Suppl 6):S14–24 doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2014.09.009 pmid:25213870

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Aquino D,
   3. Gioppo A,
   4. Finocchiaro G, et al.

   , MRI in glioma immunotherapy: evidence, pitfalls, and perspectives. J Immunol Res 2017;2017:5813951 doi:10.1155/2017/5813951 pmid:28512646

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Rosen BR,
   3. Belliveau JW,
   4. Vevea JM, et al

   . Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Med 1990;14:249–65 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910140211 pmid:2345506

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Lee SJ,
   3. Kim JH,
   4. Kim YM, et al

   . Perfusion MR imaging in gliomas: comparison with histologic tumor grade. Korean J Radiol 2001;2:1–7 doi:10.3348/kjr.2001.2.1.1 pmid:11752962

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Schmainda KM,
   3. Rand SD,
   4. Joseph AM, et al

   . Characterization of a first-pass gradient-echo spin-echo method to predict brain tumor grade and angiogenesis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1524–32 pmid:15502131

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Law M,
    3. Oh S,
    4. Babb JS, et al

    . Low-grade gliomas: dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging: prediction of patient clinical response. Radiology 2006;238:658–67 doi:10.1148/radiol.2382042180 pmid:16396838

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Hu LS,
    3. Eschbacher JM,
    4. Heiserman JE, et al

    . Reevaluating the imaging definition of tumor progression: perfusion MRI quantifies recurrent glioblastoma tumor fraction, pseudoprogression, and radiation necrosis to predict survival. Neuro Oncol 2012;14:919–30 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos112 pmid:22561797

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Prah MA,
    3. Al-Gizawiy MM,
    4. Mueller WM, et al

    . Spatial discrimination of glioblastoma and treatment effect with histologically-validated perfusion and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging metrics. J Neurooncol 2018;136:13–21 doi:10.1007/s11060-017-2617-3 pmid:28900832

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Schmainda KM,
    3. Prah M,
    4. Connelly J, et al

    . Dynamic-susceptibility contrast agent MRI measures of relative cerebral blood volume predict response to bevacizumab in recurrent high-grade glioma. Neuro Oncol 2014;16:880–88 doi:10.1093/neuonc/not216 pmid:24431219

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Kickingereder P,
    3. Wiestler B,
    4. Burth S, et al

    . Relative cerebral blood volume is a potential predictive imaging biomarker of bevacizumab efficacy in recurrent glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1139–47 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov028 pmid:25754089

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Harris RJ,
    3. Cloughesy TF,
    4. Hardy AJ, et al

    . MRI perfusion measurements calculated using advanced deconvolution techniques predict survival in recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. J Neurooncol 2015;122:497–505 doi:10.1007/s11060-015-1755-8 pmid:25773062

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    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 to conventional imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1989–98 pmid:14625221

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    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
18. 18.↵
    2. Saito T,
    3. Yamasaki F,
    4. Kajiwara Y, et al

    . Role of perfusion-weighted imaging at 3T in the histopathological differentiation between astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:1863–69 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.009 pmid:21543173

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Semmineh NB,
    3. Stokes AM,
    4. Bell LC, et al

    . A population-based Digital Reference Object (DRO) for optimizing dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC)-MRI methods for clinical trials. Tomography 2017;3:41–49 doi:10.18383/j.tom.2016.00286 pmid:28584878

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    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
21. 21.↵
    2. Boxerman JL,
    3. Schmainda KM,
    4. Weisskoff RM

    . Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:859–67 pmid:16611779

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Bedekar D,
    3. Jensen T,
    4. Rand S, et al

    . Delta T1 method: an automatic post-contrast ROI selection technique for brain tumors. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden. May 1–7, 2010
23. 23.↵
    2. Clark K,
    3. Vendt B,
    4. Smith K, et al

    . The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging 2013;26:1045–57 doi:10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7 pmid:23884657

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Schmainda KM,
    3. Prah MA,
    4. Connelly JM, et al

    . Glioma DSC-MRI perfusion data with standard imaging and ROIs. The Cancer Imaging Archive. http://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2016.5DI84Js8. Accessed July 27, 2016.
25. 25.↵
    2. Sugahara T,
    3. Korogi Y,
    4. Tomiguchi S, et al

    . Posttherapeutic intraaxial brain tumor: the value of perfusion-sensitive contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiating tumor recurrence from nonneoplastic contrast-enhancing tissue. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:901–09 pmid:10815666

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    2. Lev MH,
    3. Ozsunar Y,
    4. Henson JW, et al

    . Glial tumor grading and outcome prediction using dynamic spin-echo MR susceptibility mapping compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR: confounding effect of elevated rCBV of oligodendrogliomas [corrected]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:214–21 pmid:14970020

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    2. Hirai T,
    3. Murakami R,
    4. Nakamura H, et al

    . Prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging of high-grade astrocytomas: long-term follow-up study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1505–10 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1121 pmid:18556364

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    2. Jiang Z,
    3. Le Bas JF,
    4. Grand S, et al

    . Prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging in patients with oligodendroglioma: a survival study. J Neuroradiol 2011;38:53–61 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2010.03.004 pmid:20554324

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Saraswathy S,
    3. Crawford FW,
    4. Lamborn KR, et al

    . Evaluation of MR markers that predict survival in patients with newly diagnosed GBM prior to adjuvant therapy. J Neurooncol 2009;91:69–81 doi:10.1007/s11060-008-9685-3 pmid:18810326

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Kong DS,
    3. Kim ST,
    4. Kim EH, et al

    . Diagnostic dilemma of pseudoprogression in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastomas: the role of assessing relative cerebral blood flow volume and oxygen-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:382–87 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2286 pmid:21252041

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    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
32. 32.↵
    2. Orsingher L,
    3. Piccinini S,
    4. Crisi G

    . Differences in dynamic susceptibility contrast MR perfusion maps generated by different methods implemented in commercial software. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2014;38:647–54 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000115 pmid:24879459

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Knutsson L,
    3. Larsson EM,
    4. Thilmann O, et al

    . Calculation of cerebral perfusion parameters using regional arterial input functions identified by factor analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:444–53 doi:10.1002/jmri.20535 pmid:16523467

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Jafari-Khouzani K,
    3. Emblem KE,
    4. Kalpathy-Cramer J, et al

    . Repeatability of cerebral perfusion using dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI in glioblastoma patients. Transl Oncol 2015;8:137–46 doi:10.1016/j.tranon.2015.03.002 pmid:26055170

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Perkio J,
    3. Aronen HJ,
    4. Kangasmäki A, et al

    . Evaluation of four postprocessing methods for determination of cerebral blood volume and mean transit time by dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:973–81 doi:10.1002/mrm.10126 pmid:11979577

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Paulson ES,
    3. Prah DE,
    4. Schmainda KM

    . Spiral Perfusion Imaging With Consecutive Echoes (SPICE) for the simultaneous mapping of DSC- and DCE-MRI parameters in brain tumor patients: theory and initial feasibility. Tomography 2016;2:295–307 doi:10.18383/j.tom.2016.00217 pmid:28090589

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Korfiatis P,
    3. Kline TL,
    4. Kelm ZS, et al

    . Dynamic susceptibility contrast-MRI quantification software tool: development and evaluation. Tomography 2016;2:448–56 doi:10.18383/j.tom.2016.00172 pmid:28066810

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Kelm ZS,
    3. Korfiatis PD,
    4. Lingineni RK, et al

    . Variability and accuracy of different software packages for dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging for distinguishing glioblastoma progression from pseudoprogression. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2015;2:026001 doi:10.1117/1.JMI.2.2.026001 pmid:26158114

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Hu LS,
    3. Kelm Z,
    4. Korfiatis P,
    5. Dueck , et al

    . Impact of software modeling on the accuracy of perfusion MRI in glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2242–49 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4451 pmid:26359151

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    2. Boxerman JL,
    3. Shiroishi MS,
    4. Ellingson BM, et al

    . Dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging in glioma: review of current clinical practice. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2016;24:649–70 doi:10.1016/j.mric.2016.06.005 pmid:27742108

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Leu K,
    3. Boxerman JL,
    4. Ellingson BM

    . Effects of MRI protocol parameters, preload injection dose, fractionation strategies, and leakage correction algorithms on the fidelity of dynamic-susceptibility contrast MRI estimates of relative cerebral blood volume in gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:478–84 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5027 pmid:28034995

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    2. Havaei M,
    3. Davy A,
    4. Warde-Farley D, et al

    . Brain tumor segmentation with deep neural networks. Med Image Anal 2017;35:18–31 doi:10.1016/j.media.2016.05.004 pmid:27310171

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Menze BH,
    3. Jakab A,
    4. Bauer S, et al

    . The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2015;34:1993–2024 doi:10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694 pmid:25494501

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.
    2. Bjornerud A,
    3. Sorensen AG,
    4. Mouridsen K, et al

    . T1- and T2*-dominant extravasation correction in DSC-MRI, Part I, theoretical considerations and implications for assessment of tumor hemodynamic properties. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2011;31:2041–53 doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2011.52 pmid:21505483

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.
    2. Weisskoff RM,
    3. Zuo CS,
    4. Boxerman JL, et al

    . Simultaneous blood volume and permeability mapping using a single Gd-based contrast injection. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, San Francisco, California. August 6–12, 1994
46. 46.
    2. Liu HL,
    3. Wu YY,
    4. Yang WS, et al

    . Is Weisskoff model valid for the correction of contrast agent extravasation with combined T1 and T2* effects in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI? Med Phys 2011;38:802–09 doi:10.1118/1.3534197 pmid:21452717

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.
    2. Bedekar D,
    3. Jensen T,
    4. Schmainda KM

    . Standardization of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) image maps for ease of both inter- and intrapatient comparisons. Magn Reson Med 2010;64:907–13 doi:10.1002/mrm.22445 pmid:20806381

    CrossRefPubMed