Multisite Benchmark Study for Standardized Relative CBV in Untreated Brain Metastases Using the DSC-MRI Consensus Acquisition Protocol

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Cagney DN,
   2. Martin AM,
   3. Catalano PJ, et al

   . Incidence and prognosis of patients with brain metastases at diagnosis of systemic malignancy: a population-based study. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:1511–21 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox077 pmid:28444227

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Stelzer K

   . Epidemiology and prognosis of brain metastases. Surg Neurol Int 2013;4:S192–202 doi:10.4103/2152-7806.111296 pmid:23717790

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Kaufmann TJ,
   2. Smits M,
   3. Boxerman J, et al

   . Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol for clinical trials in brain metastases. Neuro Oncol 2020;22:757–72 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa030 pmid:32048719

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Eichler AF,
   2. Plotkin SR

   . Brain Metastases Opinion statement. Curr Treat Options Neurol 2008;10:308–14 doi:10.1007/s11940-008-0033-x pmid:18579017

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Derks SHAE,
   2. van der Veldt AAM,
   3. Smits M

   . Brain metastases: the role of clinical imaging. Br J Radiology 2022;95:20210944 doi:10.1259/bjr.20210944 pmid:34808072

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Patel P,
   2. Baradaran H,
   3. Delgado D, et al

   . MR perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of high-grade gliomas after treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:118–27 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now148 pmid:27502247

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Law M,
   2. Cha S,
   3. Knopp EA, et al

   . High-grade gliomas and solitary metastases: differentiation by using perfusion and proton spectroscopic MR imaging. Radiology 2002;222:715–21 doi:10.1148/radiol.2223010558 pmid:11867790

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Kremer S,
   2. Grand S,
   3. Berger F, et al

   . Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: differentiating melanoma and renal carcinoma metastases from high-grade astrocytomas and other metastases. Neuroradiology 2003;45:44–49 doi:10.1007/s00234-002-0886-8 pmid:12525954

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Chiang IC,
   2. Kuo Y-T,
   3. Lu C-Y, et al

   . Distinction between high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases using peritumoral 3T magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion, and perfusion imaging. Neuroradiology 2004;46:619–27 doi:10.1007/s00234-004-1246-7 pmid:15243726

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Bulakbasi N,
    2. Kocaoglu M,
    3. Farzaliyev A, et al

    . Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of perfusion MR imaging in primary and metastatic solitary malignant brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2187–99 pmid:16219821

    PubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Calli C,
    2. Kitis O,
    3. Yunten N, et al

    . Perfusion and diffusion MR imaging in enhancing malignant cerebral tumors. Eur J Radiology 2006;58:394–403 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.12.032 pmid:16527438

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Fayed N,
    2. Dávila J,
    3. Medrano J, et al

    . Malignancy assessment of brain tumours with magnetic resonance spectroscopy and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Eur J Radiology 2008;67:427–33 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.02.039 pmid:18442889

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Zhang H,
    2. Rödiger LA,
    3. Zhang G, et al

    . Differentiation between supratentorial single brain metastases and high grade astrocytic tumors: an evaluation of different DSC MRI measurements. Neuroradiol J 2009;22:369–77 doi:10.1177/197140090902200401 pmid:24207139

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Huang BY,
    2. Kwock L,
    3. Castillo M, et al

    . Association of choline levels and tumor perfusion in brain metastases assessed with proton MR spectroscopy and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion weighted MRI. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2010;9:327–37 doi:10.1177/153303461000900403 pmid:20626199

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Hakyemez B,
    2. Erdogan C,
    3. Gokalp G, et al

    . Solitary metastases and high-grade gliomas: radiological differentiation by morphometric analysis and perfusion-weighted MRI. Clin Radiology 2010;65:15–20 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.09.005 pmid:20103416

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Server A,
    2. Orheim TED,
    3. Graff BA, et al

    . Diagnostic examination performance by using microvascular leakage, cerebral blood volume, and blood flow derived from 3-T dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in the differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and brain metastasis. Neuroradiology 2011;53:319–30 doi:10.1007/s00234-010-0740-3 pmid:20625709

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Mangla R,
    2. Kolar B,
    3. Zhu T, et al

    . Percentage signal recovery derived from MR dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging is useful to differentiate common enhancing malignant lesions of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1004–10 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2441 pmid:21511863

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Zhang H,
    2. Zhang G,
    3. Oudkerk M

    . Brain metastases from different primary carcinomas: an evaluation of DSC MRI measurements. Neuroradiol J 2012;25:67–75 doi:10.1177/197140091202500109 pmid:24028878

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Tsougos I,
    2. Svolos P,
    3. Kousi E, et al

    . Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme from metastatic brain tumor using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion and perfusion metrics at 3 T. Cancer Imaging 2012;12:423–36 doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2012.0038 pmid:23108208

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Tsolaki E,
    2. Svolos P,
    3. Kousi E, et al

    . Automated differentiation of glioblastomas from intracranial metastases using 3T MR spectroscopic and perfusion data. Int J Comput Assist Radiology Surg 2013;8:751–61 doi:10.1007/s11548-012-0808-0 pmid:23334798

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Bauer AH,
    2. Erly W,
    3. Moser FG, et al

    . Differentiation of solitary brain metastasis from glioblastoma multiforme: a predictive multiparametric approach using combined MR diffusion and perfusion. Neuroradiology 2015;57:697–703 doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1524-6 pmid:25845813

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. She D,
    2. Xing Z,
    3. Cao D

    . Differentiation of glioblastoma and solitary brain metastasis by gradient of relative cerebral blood volume in the peritumoral brain zone derived from dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2019;43:13–17 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000771 pmid:30015801

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Askaner K,
    2. Rydelius A,
    3. Engelholm S, et al

    . Differentiation between glioblastomas and brain metastases and regarding their primary site of malignancy using dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI at 3T. J Neuroradiol 2019;46:367–72 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2018.09.006 pmid:30389510

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Chakhoyan A,
    2. Raymond C,
    3. Chen J, et al

    . Probabilistic independent component analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI in metastatic brain tumors. Cancer Imaging 2019;19:14 doi:10.1186/s40644-019-0201-0 pmid:30885275

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Aslan K,
    2. Gunbey HP,
    3. Tomak L, et al

    . Multiparametric MRI in differentiating solitary brain metastasis from high-grade glioma: diagnostic value of the combined use of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy parameters. Neurol Neurochir Pol 2019;53:227–37

    PubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Surendra KL,
    2. Patwari S,
    3. Agrawal S, et al

    . Percentage signal intensity recovery: a step ahead of rCBV in DSC MR perfusion imaging for the differentiation of common neoplasms of brain. Indian J Cancer 2020;57:36–43 doi:10.4103/ijc.IJC_421_18 pmid:31898591

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Cindil E,
    2. Sendur HN,
    3. Cerit MN, et al

    . Validation of combined use of DWI and percentage signal recovery-optimized protocol of DSC-MRI in differentiation of high-grade glioma, metastasis, and lymphoma. Neuroradiology 2021;63:331–42 doi:10.1007/s00234-020-02522-9 pmid:32821962

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Lavrova A,
    2. Teunissen WHT,
    3. Warnert EAH, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of arterial spin labeling in comparison with dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion for brain tumor surveillance at 3T MRI. Front Oncol 2022;12:849657 doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.849657 pmid:35669426

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Kamimura K,
    2. Nakajo M,
    3. Gohara M, et al

    . Differentiation of hemangioblastoma from brain metastasis using MR amide proton transfer imaging. J Neuroimaging 2022;32:920–29 doi:10.1111/jon.13019 pmid:35731178

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Semmineh NB,
    2. Bell LC,
    3. Stokes AM, et al

    . Optimization of acquisition and analysis methods for clinical dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI using a population-based digital reference object. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1981–88 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5827 pmid:30309842

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    1. Kamimura K,
    2. Kamimura Y,
    3. Nakano T, et al

    . Differentiating brain metastasis from glioblastoma by time-dependent diffusion MRI. Cancer Imaging 2023;23:75 doi:10.1186/s40644-023-00595-2 pmid:37553578

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Ahir BK,
    2. Engelhard HH,
    3. Lakka SS

    . Tumor development and angiogenesis in adult brain tumor: glioblastoma. Mol Neurobiol 2020;57:2461–78 doi:10.1007/s12035-020-01892-8 pmid:32152825

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Boxerman JL,
    2. Quarles CC,
    3. Hu LS, et al

    ; Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition Imaging Standardization Steering Committee. Consensus recommendations for a dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI protocol for use in high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2020;22:1262–75 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa141 pmid:32516388

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Bedekar D,
    2. Jensen T,
    3. 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
35. 35.↵
    1. Prah MA,
    2. Stufflebeam SM,
    3. Paulson ES, et al

    . Repeatability of standardized and normalized relative CBV in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1654–61 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4374 pmid:26066626

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    1. Schmainda KM,
    2. Prah MA,
    3. Marques H, et al

    . Value of dynamic contrast perfusion MRI to predict early response to bevacizumab in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: results from ACRIN 6686 multicenter trial. Neuro Oncol 2021;23:314–23 doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa167 pmid:32678438

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Schmainda KM,
    2. Prah MA,
    3. Rand SD, et al

    . Multisite concordance of DSC-MRI analysis for brain tumors: results of a National Cancer Institute Quantitative Imaging Network Collaborative Project. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1008–16 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5675 pmid:29794239

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
38. 38.↵
    1. Schmainda KM,
    2. Prah MA,
    3. Zhang Z, et al

    . Quantitative Delta T1 (dT1) as a replacement for adjudicated central reader analysis of contrast-enhancing tumor burden: a subanalysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6677/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0625 Multicenter Brain Tumor Trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:1132–39 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6110 pmid:31248863

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    1. Boxerman JLJL,
    2. Schmainda KMM,
    3. Weisskoff RMM

    . 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

    PubMedWeb of Science
40. 40.↵
    1. Whitfield BT,
    2. Huse JT

    . Classification of adult-type diffuse gliomas: impact of the World Health Organization 2021 update. Brain Pathol 2022;32:e13062. doi:10.1111/bpa.13062 pmid:35289001

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Berghoff AS,
    2. Preusser M

    . Anti-angiogenic therapies in brain metastases. Memo 2018;11:14–17

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Schmainda KM,
    2. Prah MA,
    3. Hu LS, et al

    . Moving toward a consensus DSC-MRI protocol: validation of a low-flip angle single-dose option as a reference standard for brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:626–33 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6015 pmid:30923088

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
43. 43.↵
    1. Donahue KM,
    2. Krouwer H,
    3. Rand SD, et al

    . Utility of simultaneously acquired gradient-echo and spin-echo cerebral blood volume and morphology maps in brain tumor patients. Magn Reson Med 2000;43:845–53 doi:10.1002/1522-2594(200006)43:6<845::AID-MRM10>3.0.CO;2-J

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
44. 44.↵
    1. Prah MA,
    2. Al-Gizawiy MM,
    3. 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
45. 45.↵
    1. Hoxworth JM,
    2. Eschbacher JM,
    3. Gonzales AC, et al

    . Performance of standardized relative CBV for quantifying regional histologic tumor burden in recurrent high-grade glioma: comparison against normalized relative CBV using image-localized stereotactic biopsies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:408–15 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6486 pmid:32165359

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
46. 46.↵
    1. Iv M,
    2. Liu X,
    3. Lavezo J, et al

    . Perfusion MRI-based fractional tumor burden differentiates between tumor and treatment effect in recurrent glioblastomas and informs clinical decision-making. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:1649–57 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6211

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
47. 47.↵
    1. Connelly JM,
    2. Prah MA,
    3. Santos-Pinheiro F, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging mapping of brain tumor burden: clinical implications for neurosurgical management: case report. Neurosurgery Open 2021;2:okab029 doi:10.1093/neuopn/okab029 pmid:34661110

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    1. Skogen K,
    2. Schulz A,
    3. Dormagen JB, et al

    . Diagnostic performance of texture analysis on MRI in grading cerebral gliomas. Eur J Radiology 2016;85:824–29 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.013 pmid:26971430

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    1. Hu LS,
    2. Eschbacher JM,
    3. 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