Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Perfusion Processing for Neuroradiologists: Model-Dependent Analysis May Not Be Necessary for Determining Recurrent High-Grade Glioma versus Treatment Effect

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Ostrom QT,
   3. Gittleman H,
   4. Liao P, et al

   . CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2007–2011. Neuro Oncol 2014;16(suppl 4):iv1–iv63

   FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Ballman KV,
   3. Buckner JC,
   4. Brown PD, et al

   . The relationship between six-month progression-free survival and 12-month overall survival end points for phase II trials in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro Oncol 2007;9:29–38

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Yang I,
   3. Aghi MK

   . New advances that enable identification of glioblastoma recurrence. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2009;6:648–57

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Kumar AJ,
   3. Leeds NE,
   4. Fuller GN, et al

   . Malignant gliomas: MR imaging spectrum of radiation therapy- and chemotherapy-induced necrosis of the brain after treatment. Radiology 2000;217:377–84

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Kohshi K,
   3. Imada H,
   4. Nomoto S, et al

   . Successful treatment of radiation-induced brain necrosis by hyperbaric oxygen therapy. J Neurol Sci 2003;209:115–17

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Levin VA,
   3. Bidaut L,
   4. Hou P, et al

   . Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab therapy for radiation necrosis of the central nervous system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79:1487–95

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Gonzalez J,
   3. Kumar AJ,
   4. Conrad CA, et al

   . Effect of bevacizumab on radiation necrosis of the brain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:323–36

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Weller M,
   3. Cloughesy T,
   4. Perry JR, et al

   . Standards of care for treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: are we there yet? Neuro Oncol 2013;15:4–27

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Bisdas S,
   3. Naegele T,
   4. Ritz R, et al

   . Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acad Radiol 2011;18:575–83

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Narang J,
    3. Jain R,
    4. Arbab AS, et al

    . Differentiating treatment-induced necrosis from recurrent/progressive brain tumor using nonmodel-based semiquantitative indices derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR perfusion. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:1037–46

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
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 MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:552–58

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Zeng QS,
    3. Li CF,
    4. Liu H, et al

    . Distinction between recurrent glioma and radiation injury using magnetic resonance spectroscopy in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:151–58

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Leach MO,
    3. Brindle KM,
    4. Evelhoch JL, et al

    . The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer 2005;92:1599–610

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Tofts PS,
    3. Kermode AG

    . Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 1991;17:357–67

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Murase K,
    3. Yamazaki Y,
    4. Miyazaki S

    . Deconvolution analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced data based on singular value decomposition optimized by generalized cross validation. Magn Reson Med Sci 2004;3:165–75

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Pope WB,
    3. Young JR,
    4. Ellingson BM

    . Advances in MRI assessment of gliomas and response to anti-VEGF therapy. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2011;11:336–44

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    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

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Jackson A,
    3. O'Connor JP,
    4. Parker GJ, et al

    . Imaging tumor vascular heterogeneity and angiogenesis using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:3449–59

    Abstract/FREE Full Text