Relationship between Shear Stiffness Measured by MR Elastography and Perfusion Metrics Measured by Perfusion CT of Meningiomas

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Louis DN ,
   2. Perry A,
   3. Reifenberger G, et al

   . The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 pmid:27157931

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Kendall B,
   2. Pullicino P

   . Comparison of consistency of meningiomas and CT appearances. Neuroradiology 1979;18:173–76 doi:10.1007/BF00345721 pmid:530427

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Shiroishi MS,
   2. Cen SY,
   3. Tamrazi B, et al

   . Predicting meningioma consistency on preoperative neuroimaging studies. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2016;27:145–54 doi:10.1016/j.nec.2015.11.007 pmid:27012379

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Muthupillai R,
   2. Lomas DJ,
   3. Rossman PJ, et al

   . Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves. Science 1995;269:1854–57 doi:10.1126/science.7569924 pmid:7569924

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Arani A,
   2. Murphy MC,
   3. Glaser KJ, et al

   . Measuring the effects of aging and sex on regional brain stiffness with MR elastography in healthy older adults. Neuroimage 2015;111:59–64 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.016 pmid:25698157

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. ElSheikh M,
   2. Arani A,
   3. Perry A, et al

   . MR elastography demonstrates unique regional brain stiffness patterns in dementias. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;209:403–08 doi:10.2214/AJR.16.17455 pmid:28570101

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Hiscox LV,
   2. Johnson CL,
   3. McGarry MD, et al

   . High-resolution magnetic resonance elastography reveals differences in subcortical gray matter viscoelasticity between young and healthy older adults. Neurobiol Aging 2018;65:158–67 doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.01.010 pmid:29494862

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Sack I,
   2. Streitberger KJ,
   3. Krefting D, et al

   . The influence of physiological aging and atrophy on brain viscoelastic properties in humans. PLoS One 2011;6:e23451 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023451 pmid:21931599

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Takamura T,
   2. Motosugi U,
   3. Sasaki Y, et al

   . Influence of age on global and regional brain stiffness in young and middle-aged adults. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;51:727–33 doi:10.1002/jmri.26881 pmid:31373136

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Murphy MC,
    2. Huston J 3rd.,
    3. Jack CR Jr., et al

    . Decreased brain stiffness in Alzheimer’s disease determined by magnetic resonance elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;34:494–98 doi:10.1002/jmri.22707 pmid:21751286

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Murphy MC,
    2. Jones DT,
    3. Jack CR Jr., et al

    . Regional brain stiffness changes across the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum. Neuroimage Clin 2016;10:283–90 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2015.12.007 pmid:26900568

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Lipp A,
    2. Trbojevic R,
    3. Paul F, et al

    . Cerebral magnetic resonance elastography in supranuclear palsy and idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Neuroimage Clin 2013;3:381–87 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2013.09.006 pmid:24273721

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Bunevicius A,
    2. Schregel K,
    3. Sinkus R, et al

    . REVIEW: MR elastography of brain tumors. Neuroimage Clin 2020;25:102109 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102109 pmid:31809993

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Hughes JD,
    2. Fattahi N,
    3. Van Gompel J, et al

    . Higher-resolution magnetic resonance elastography in meningiomas to determine intratumoral consistency. Neurosurgery 2015;77:653–58; discussion 658–59 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000892 pmid:26197204

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Murphy MC,
    2. Huston J 3rd.,
    3. Glaser KJ, et al

    . Preoperative assessment of meningioma stiffness using magnetic resonance elastography. J Neurosurg 2013;118:643–48 doi:10.3171/2012.9.JNS12519 pmid:23082888

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Sakai N,
    2. Takehara Y,
    3. Yamashita S, et al

    . Shear stiffness of 4 common intracranial tumors measured using MR elastography: comparison with intraoperative consistency grading. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1851–59 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4832 pmid:27339950

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Xu L,
    2. Lin Y,
    3. Han JC, et al

    . Magnetic resonance elastography of brain tumors: preliminary results. Acta Radiol 2007;48:327–30 doi:10.1080/02841850701199967 pmid:17453505

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Yin Z,
    2. Hughes JD,
    3. Glaser KJ, et al

    . Slip interface imaging based on MR-elastography preoperatively predicts meningioma-brain adhesion. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46:1007–16 doi:10.1002/jmri.25623 pmid:28194925

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Parker KJ

    . Experimental evaluations of the microchannel flow model. Phys Med Biol 2015;60:4227–42 doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/11/4227 pmid:25973729

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Le Bihan D

    . Theoretical principles of perfusion imaging: application to magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1992;27:(Suppl 2):6–11 doi:10.1097/00004424-199212002-00002 pmid:1468877

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Chatelin S,
    2. Humbert-Claude M,
    3. Garteiser P, et al

    . Cannabinoid receptor activation in the juvenile rat brain results in rapid biomechanical alterations: neurovascular mechanism as a putative confounding factor. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2016;36:954–64 doi:10.1177/0271678X15606923 pmid:26661178

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Hetzer S,
    2. Birr P,
    3. Fehlner A, et al

    . Perfusion alters stiffness of deep gray matter. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2018;38:116–25 doi:10.1177/0271678X17691530 pmid:28151092

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Dittmann F,
    2. Tzschatzsch H,
    3. Hirsch S, et al

    . Tomoelastography of the abdomen: tissue mechanical properties of the liver, spleen, kidney, and pancreas from single MR elastography scans at different hydration states. Magn Reson Med 2017;78:976–83 doi:10.1002/mrm.26484 pmid:27699875

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Jamin Y,
    2. Boult JK,
    3. Li J, et al

    . Exploring the biomechanical properties of brain malignancies and their pathologic determinants in vivo with magnetic resonance elastography. Cancer Res 2015;75:1216–24 doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-1997 pmid:25672978

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Riegler J,
    2. Labyed Y,
    3. Rosenzweig S, et al

    . Tumor elastography and its association with collagen and the tumor microenvironment. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24:4455–67 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3262 pmid:29798909

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.↵
    1. Zhang H,
    2. Rodiger LA,
    3. Shen T, et al

    . Perfusion MR imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant meningiomas. Neuroradiology 2008;50:525–30 doi:10.1007/s00234-008-0373-y pmid:18379768

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Zikou A,
    2. Alexiou GA,
    3. Goussia A, et al

    . The role of diffusion tensor imaging and dynamic susceptibility perfusion MRI in the evaluation of meningioma grade and subtype. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2016;146:109–15 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.05.005 pmid:27208870

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Kimura H,
    2. Takeuchi H,
    3. Koshimoto Y, et al

    . Perfusion imaging of meningioma by using continuous arterial spin-labeling: comparison with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR images and histopathologic features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:85–93 pmid:16418363

    PubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Fattahi N,
    2. Arani A,
    3. Perry A, et al

    . MR elastography demonstrates increased brain stiffness in normal pressure hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:462–67 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4560 pmid:26542235

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    1. Huston J 3rd.,
    2. Murphy MC,
    3. Boeve BF, et al

    . Magnetic resonance elastography of frontotemporal dementia. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;43:474–78 doi:10.1002/jmri.24977 pmid:26130216

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Murphy MC,
    2. Huston J 3rd.,
    3. Jack CR Jr., et al

    . Measuring the characteristic topography of brain stiffness with magnetic resonance elastography. PLoS One 2013;8:e81668 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081668 pmid:24312570

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Kamath A,
    2. Smith WS,
    3. Powers WJ, et al

    . Perfusion CT compared to H(2) (15)O/O (15)O PET in patients with chronic cervical carotid artery occlusion. Neuroradiology 2008;50:745–51 doi:10.1007/s00234-008-0403-9 pmid:18509627

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Klotz E,
    2. König M

    . Perfusion measurements of the brain: using dynamic CT for the quantitative assessment of cerebral ischemia in acute stroke. Eur J Radiol 1999;30:170–84 doi:10.1016/S0720-048X(99)00009-1 pmid:10452715

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Phuttharak W,
    2. Boonrod A,
    3. Thammaroj J, et al

    . Preoperative MRI evaluation of meningioma consistency: a focus on detailed architectures. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018;169:178–84 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.04.025 pmid:29709881

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. Shi R,
    2. Jiang T,
    3. Si L, et al

    . Correlations of magnetic resonance, perfusion-weighed imaging parameters and microvessel density in meningioma. J BUON 2016;21:709–713 pmid:27569094

    PubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Koizumi S,
    2. Sakai N,
    3. Kawaji H, et al

    . Pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling reflects vascular density and differentiates angiomatous meningiomas from non-angiomatous meningiomas. J Neurooncol 2015;121:549–56 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1666-0 pmid:25479828

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Huang X,
    2. Chafi H,
    3. Matthews KL 2nd., et al

    . Magnetic resonance elastography of the brain: astudy of feasibility and reproducibility using an ergonomic pillow-like passive driver. Magn Reson Imaging 2019;59:68–76 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2019.03.009 pmid:30858002

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Lee TY,
    2. Nabavi DG,
    3. Lee DH, et al

    . Quantitative CT perfusion measurement: normal values and reproducibility in man. Stroke 2000;32:344–45 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/str.32.suppl_1.344-e. Accessed April 15, 2020
39. 39.↵
    1. Maiuri F,
    2. Iaconetta G,
    3. de Divitiis O, et al

    . Intracranial meningiomas: correlations between MR imaging and histology. Eur J Radiol 1999;31:69–75 doi:10.1016/S0720-048X(98)00083-7 pmid:10477102

    CrossRefPubMed