Volumetric Measurement of Relative CBV Using T1-Perfusion-Weighted MRI with High Temporal Resolution Compared with Traditional T2*-Perfusion-Weighted MRI in Postoperative Patients with High-Grade Gliomas

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Cha S,
   3. Johnson G,
   4. Wadghiri YZ, et al

   . Dynamic, contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI in mouse gliomas: correlation with histopathology. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:848–55 doi:10.1002/mrm.10446 pmid:12704767

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Provenzale JM,
   3. Mukundan S,
   4. Barboriak DP

   . Diffusion-weighted and perfusion MR imaging for brain tumor characterization and assessment of treatment response. Radiology 2006;239:632–49 doi:10.1148/radiol.2393042031 pmid:16714455

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Aronen HJ,
   3. Gazit IE,
   4. Louis DN, et al

   . Cerebral blood volume maps of gliomas: comparison with tumor grade and histologic findings. Radiology 1994;191:41–51 doi:10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134596 pmid:8134596

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Law M,
   3. Yang S,
   4. Babb JS, et al

   . Comparison of cerebral blood volume and vascular permeability from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with glioma grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:746–55 pmid:15140713

   PubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Young RJ,
   3. Gupta A,
   4. Shah AD, et al

   . MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging 2013;37:41–49 doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.02.016 pmid:23151413

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Shin KE,
   3. Ahn KJ,
   4. Choi HS, et al

   . DCE and DSC MR perfusion imaging in the differentiation of recurrent tumour from treatment-related changes in patients with glioma. Clin Radiol 2014;69:e264–72 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2014.01.016 pmid:24594379

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Prager AJ,
   3. Martinez N,
   4. Beal K, et al

   . Diffusion and perfusion MRI to differentiate treatment-related changes including pseudoprogression from recurrent tumors in high-grade gliomas with histopathologic evidence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:877–85 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4218 pmid:25593202

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Wan B,
   3. Wang S,
   4. Tu M, et al

   . The diagnostic performance of perfusion MRI for differentiating glioma recurrence from pseudoprogression: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e6333 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000006333 pmid:28296759

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   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
10. 10.↵
    2. Jahng GH,
    3. Li KL,
    4. Ostergaard L, et al

    . Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: a comprehensive update on principles and techniques. Korean J Radiol 2014;15:554–77 doi:10.3348/kjr.2014.15.5.554 pmid:25246817

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Heo YJ,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Park JE, et al

    . Uninterpretable dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR images in patients with post-treatment glioblastomas: cross-validation of alternative imaging options. PLoS One 2015;10:e0136380 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136380 pmid:26296086

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    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. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:552–58 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1377 pmid:19056837

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Saini J,
    3. Gupta RK,
    4. Kumar M, et al

    . Comparative evaluation of cerebral gliomas using rCBV measurements during sequential acquisition of T1-perfusion and T2-perfusion MRI. PLoS One 2019;14:e0215400 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0215400 pmid:31017934

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Dean BL,
    3. Lee C,
    4. Kirsch JE, et al

    . Cerebral hemodynamics and cerebral blood volume: MR assessment using gadolinium contrast agents and T1-weighted turbo-FLASH imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1992;13:39–48 pmid:1595482

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Hackländer T,
    3. Reichenbach JR,
    4. Hofer M, et al

    . Measurement of cerebral blood volume via the relaxing effect of low-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine during bolus transit. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996;17:821–30 pmid:8733953

    PubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Sourbron S,
    3. Ingrisch M,
    4. Siefert A, et al

    . Quantification of cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, and blood-brain-barrier leakage with DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009;62:205–17 doi:10.1002/mrm.22005 pmid:19449435

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Larsen VA,
    3. Simonsen HJ,
    4. Law I, et al

    . Evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MRI in the differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. Neuroradiology 2013;55:361–69 doi:10.1007/s00234-012-1127-4 pmid:23262559

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Roy B,
    3. Gupta RK,
    4. Maudsley AA, et al

    . Utility of multiparametric 3-T MRI for glioma characterization. Neuroradiology 2013;55:603–13 doi:10.1007/s00234-013-1145-x pmid:23377234

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Falk A,
    3. Fahlström M,
    4. Rostrup E, et al

    . Discrimination between glioma grades II and III in suspected low-grade gliomas using dynamic contrast-enhanced and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging: a histogram analysis approach. Neuroradiology 2014;56:1031–38 doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1426-z pmid:25204450

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Gupta PK,
    3. Saini J,
    4. Sahoo P, et al

    . Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in grading of pediatric brain tumors on 3T. Pediatr Neurosurg 2017;52:298–305 doi:10.1159/000479283 pmid:28848203

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Sahoo P,
    3. Gupta RK,
    4. Gupta PK, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of automatic normalization of CBV in glioma grading using T1-weighted DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 2017;44:32–37 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2017.08.003 pmid:28827098

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Sengupta A,
    3. Ramaniharan AK,
    4. Gupta RK, et al

    . Glioma grading using a machine-learning framework based on optimized features obtained from T1 perfusion MRI and volumes of tumor components. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50:1295–306 doi:10.1002/jmri.26704 pmid:30895704

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Conte GM,
    3. Castellano A,
    4. Altabella L, et al

    . Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI in the study of brain gliomas: a comparison of data obtained using different commercial software. Radiol Med 2017;122:294–302 doi:10.1007/s11547-016-0720-8 pmid:28070841

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Conte GM,
    3. Altabella L,
    4. Castellano A, et al

    . Comparison of T1 mapping and fixed T1 method for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion in brain gliomas. Eur Radiol 2019;29:3467–79 doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06122-x pmid:30972545

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Tietze A,
    3. Mouridsen K,
    4. Mikkelsen IK

    . The impact of reliable prebolus T1 measurements or a fixed T1 value in the assessment of glioma patients with dynamic contrast enhancing MRI. Neuroradiology 2015;57:561–72 doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1502-z pmid:25744200

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Koo TK,
    3. Li MY

    . A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155–63 doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 pmid:27330520

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Gahramanov S,
    3. Muldoon LL,
    4. Varallyay CG, et al

    . Pseudoprogression of glioblastoma after chemo- and radiation therapy: diagnosis by using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with ferumoxytol versus gadoteridol and correlation with survival. Radiology 2013;266:842–52 doi:10.1148/radiol.12111472 pmid:23204544

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Álvarez-Torres M del M,
    3. Fuster-García E,
    4. Juan-Albarracín J, et al

    . Local detection of microvessels in IDH-wildtype glioblastoma using relative cerebral blood volume: an imaging marker useful for astrocytoma grade 4 classification. BMC Cancer 2022;22:40 doi:10.1186/s12885-021-09082-y pmid:34979999

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Wang K,
    3. Li Y,
    4. Cheng H, et al

    . Perfusion CT detects alterations in local cerebral flow of glioma related to IDH, MGMT and TERT status. BMC Neurol 2021;21:460 doi:10.1186/s12883-021-02490-4 pmid:34814870

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Mangla R,
    3. Singh G,
    4. Ziegelitz D, et al

    . Changes in relative cerebral blood volume 1 month after radiation-temozolomide therapy can help predict overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology 2010;256:575–84 doi:10.1148/radiol.10091440 pmid:20529987

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    2. Nguyen TB,
    3. Cron GO,
    4. Perdrizet K, et al

    . Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of DSC- and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the preoperative grading of astrocytomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2017–22 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4398 pmid:26228886

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    2. Paprottka KJ,
    3. Kleiner S,
    4. Preibisch C, et al

    . Fully automated analysis combining [18F]-FET-PET and multiparametric MRI including DSC perfusion and APTw imaging: a promising tool for objective evaluation of glioma progression. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021;48:4445–55 doi:10.1007/s00259-021-05427-8 pmid:34173008

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Steidl E,
    3. Langen KJ,
    4. Hmeidan SA, et al

    . Sequential implementation of DSC-MR perfusion and dynamic [18F]FET PET allows efficient differentiation of glioma progression from treatment-related changes. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021;48:1956–65 doi:10.1007/s00259-020-05114-0 pmid:33241456

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Choi YJ,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Jahng GH, et al

    . Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: Added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging. Acta Radiol 2013;54:448–54 doi:10.1177/0284185112474916 pmid:23592805

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Park YW,
    3. Ahn SS,
    4. Kim EH, et al

    . Differentiation of recurrent diffuse glioma from treatment-induced change using amide proton transfer imaging: incremental value to diffusion and perfusion parameters. Neuroradiology 2021;63:363–72 doi:10.1007/s00234-020-02542-5 pmid:32879995

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Liang J,
    3. Liu D,
    4. Gao P, et al

    . Diagnostic values of DCE-MRI and DSC-MRI for differentiation between high-grade and low-grade gliomas: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 2018;25:338–48 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2017.10.001 pmid:29223713

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Thomas AA,
    3. Arevalo-Perez J,
    4. Kaley T, et al

    . Dynamic contrast enhanced T1 MRI perfusion differentiates pseudoprogression from recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2015;125:183–90 doi:10.1007/s11060-015-1893-z pmid:26275367

    CrossRefPubMed