On the Use of DSC-MRI for Measuring Vascular Permeability

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Shubik P

   . Vascularization of tumors: a review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1982;103:211–26 doi:10.1007/BF00409698 pmid:6181069

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   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
3. 3.↵
   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
4. 4.↵
   2. Quarles CC,
   3. Gochberg DF,
   4. Gore JC, et al

   . A theoretical framework to model DSC-MRI data acquired in the presence of contrast agent extravasation. Phys Med Biol 2009;54:5749–66 doi:10.1088/0031-9155/54/19/006 pmid:19729712

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   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

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Paulson E,
   3. Prah DE,
   4. Schmainda KM

   . Compensation of confounding T1 and T2 dipolar and residual susceptibility effects in DSC-MRI using dual-echo SPIRAL. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Berlin, Germany. May 19–25, 2007:2811
7. 7.↵
   2. Weisskoff RM,
   3. Boxerman JL,
   4. Sorensen AG

   . Simultaneous blood volume and permeability mapping using a single Gd-based contrast agent. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, San Francisco, California. August 6–12, 1994:279
8. 8.↵
   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
9. 9.↵
   2. Quarles CC,
   3. Ward BD,
   4. Schmainda KM

   . Improving the reliability of obtaining tumor hemodynamic parameters in the presence of contrast agent extravasation. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:1307–16 doi:10.1002/mrm.20497 pmid:15906288

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    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

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Emblem KE,
    3. Bjornerud A,
    4. Mouridsen K, et al

    . T(1)- and T(2)(*)-dominant extravasation correction in DSC-MRI: part II—predicting patient outcome after a single dose of cediranib in recurrent glioblastoma patients. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2011;31:2054–64 doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2011.39 pmid:21505476

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Vonken EJ,
    3. van Osch MJ,
    4. Bakker CJ, et al

    . Measurement of cerebral perfusion with dual-echo multi-slice quantitative dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:109–17 pmid:10441012

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Miyati T,
    3. Banno T,
    4. Mase M, et al

    . Dual dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:230–35 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880070136 pmid:9039621

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Uematsu H,
    3. Maeda M,
    4. Sadato N, et al

    . Blood volume of gliomas determined by double-echo dynamic perfusion-weighted MR imaging: a preliminary study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1915–19 pmid:11733325

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Vonken EP,
    3. van Osch MJ,
    4. Bakker CJ, et al

    . Simultaneous quantitative cerebral perfusion and Gd-DTPA extravasation measurement with dual-echo dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med 2000;43:820–27 pmid:10861876

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Quarles CC,
    3. Gore JC,
    4. Xu L, et al

    . Comparison of dual-echo DSC-MRI- and DCE-MRI-derived contrast agent kinetic parameters. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:944–53 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.03.008 pmid:22617148

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Skinner JT,
    3. Robison RK,
    4. Elder CP, et al

    . Evaluation of a multiple spin- and gradient-echo (SAGE) EPI acquisition with SENSE acceleration: applications for perfusion imaging in and outside the brain. Magn Reson Imaging 2014;32:1171–80 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2014.08.032 pmid:25179133

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Tofts PS

    . Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:91–101 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880070113 pmid:9039598

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Tofts PS,
    3. Brix G,
    4. Buckley DL, et al

    . Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223–32 pmid:10508281

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Schmiedeskamp H,
    3. Andre JB,
    4. Straka M, et al

    . Simultaneous perfusion and permeability measurements using combined spin- and gradient-echo MRI. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2013;33:732–43 doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2013.10 pmid:23462570

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Zhang N,
    3. Zhang L,
    4. Qiu B, et al

    . Correlation of volume transfer coefficient Ktrans with histopathologic grades of gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;36:355–63 doi:10.1002/jmri.23675 pmid:22581762

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Cha S,
    3. Yang L,
    4. Johnson G, et al

    . Comparison of microvascular permeability measurements, K(trans), determined with conventional steady-state T1-weighted and first-pass T2*-weighted MR imaging methods in gliomas and meningiomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:409–17 pmid:16484420

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    2. Ah-See ML,
    3. Makris A,
    4. Taylor NJ, et al

    . Early changes in functional dynamic magnetic resonance imaging predict for pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:6580–89 doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4310 pmid:18927299

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. George ML,
    3. Dzik-Jurasz AS,
    4. Padhani AR, et al

    . Non-invasive methods of assessing angiogenesis and their value in predicting response to treatment in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2001;88:1628–36 doi:10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01947.x pmid:11736977

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Armitage PA,
    3. Schwindack C,
    4. Bastin ME, et al

    . Quantitative assessment of intracranial tumor response to dexamethasone using diffusion, perfusion and permeability magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:303–10 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2006.09.002 pmid:17371718

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Batchelor TT,
    3. Sorensen AG,
    4. di Tomaso E, et al

    . AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Cell 2007;11:83–95 doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2006.11.021 pmid:17222792

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Toh CH,
    3. Wei KC,
    4. Chang CN, et al

    . Differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphomas and glioblastomas: comparisons of diagnostic performance of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging without and with contrast-leakage correction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1145–49 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3383 pmid:23348763

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    2. Provenzale JM,
    3. Wang GR,
    4. Brenner T, et al

    . Comparison of permeability in high-grade and low-grade brain tumors using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:711–16 doi:10.2214/ajr.178.3.1780711 pmid:11856703

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. Donahue KM,
    3. Krouwer HG,
    4. 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 pmid:10861879

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Bonekamp D,
    3. Deike K,
    4. Wiestler B, et al

    . Association of overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: comparison of intraindividually matched T1- and T2 (*)-based bolus techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:87–96 doi:10.1002/jmri.24756 pmid:25244574

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Schmiedeskamp H,
    3. Straka M,
    4. Newbould RD, et al

    . Combined spin- and gradient-echo perfusion-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:30–40 doi:10.1002/mrm.23195 pmid:22114040

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Carroll TJ,
    3. Rowley HA,
    4. Haughton VM

    . Automatic calculation of the arterial input function for cerebral perfusion imaging with MR imaging. Radiology 2003;227:593–600 doi:10.1148/radiol.2272020092 pmid:12663823

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. 33.↵
    2. Newton AT,
    3. Skinner JT,
    4. Quarles CC

    . Automatic AIF estimation in multi-echo DSC-MRI of pediatric patieints: avoiding the noise floor. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. April 20–26, 2013
34. 34.↵
    2. Liu HL,
    3. Pu Y,
    4. Liu Y, et al

    . Cerebral blood flow measurement by dynamic contrast MRI using singular value decomposition with an adaptive threshold. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:167–72 pmid:10398963

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Kuperman VY,
    3. Karczmar GS,
    4. Blomley MJ, et al

    . Differentiating between T1 and T2* changes caused by gadopentetate dimeglumine in the kidney by using a double-echo dynamic MR imaging sequence. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996;6:764–68 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880060509 pmid:8890014

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Landis CS,
    3. Li X,
    4. Telang FW, et al

    . Determination of the MRI contrast agent concentration time course in vivo following bolus injection: effect of equilibrium transcytolemmal water exchange. Magn Reson Med 2000;44:563–74 pmid:11025512

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Skinner JT,
    3. Yankeelov TE,
    4. Peterson TE, et al

    . Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and quantitative SPECT in a rat glioma model. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2012;7:494–500 doi:10.1002/cmmi.1479 pmid:22991315

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Mills SJ,
    3. Patankar TA,
    4. Haroon HA, et al

    . Do cerebral blood volume and contrast transfer coefficient predict prognosis in human glioma? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:853–58 pmid:16611778

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    2. Liu Y,
    3. Ding W,
    4. Bensheng Q

    . Extravascular extracellular space fraction measurement by DSC-MRI: a theoretical study. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Milan, Italy. May 10–16, 2014
40. 40.↵
    2. Semmineh NB,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Boxerman JL, et al

    . An efficient computational approach to characterize DSC-MRI signals arising from three-dimensional heterogeneous tissue structures. PLoS One 2014;9:e84764 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084764 pmid:24416281

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Semmineh NB,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Skinner JT, et al

    . Assessing tumor cytoarchitecture using multiecho DSC-MRI derived measures of the transverse relaxivity at tracer equilibrium (TRATE). Magn Reson Med 2015;74:772–84 doi:10.1002/mrm.25435 pmid:25227668

    CrossRefPubMed