Correlation of Tumor Immunohistochemistry with Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced and DSC-MRI Parameters in Patients with Gliomas

References

1. 1.↵
   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
2. 2.↵
   2. Hipp SJ,
   3. Steffen-Smith E,
   4. Hammoud D, et al

   . Predicting outcome of children with diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas using multiparametric imaging. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:904–09 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nor076 pmid:21757444

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Hirai T,
   3. Murakami R,
   4. Nakamura H, et al

   . Prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging of high-grade astrocytomas: long-term follow-up study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1505–10 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1121 pmid:18556364

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   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
5. 5.↵
   2. Nguyen TB,
   3. Cron GO,
   4. Mercier JF, et al

   . Preoperative prognostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-derived contrast transfer coefficient and plasma volume in patients with cerebral gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:63–69 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4006 pmid:24948500

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Jafari-Khouzani K,
   3. Emblem KE,
   4. Kalpathy-Cramer J, et al

   . Repeatability of cerebral perfusion using dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI in glioblastoma patients. Transl Oncol 2015;8:137–46 doi:10.1016/j.tranon.2015.03.002 pmid:26055170

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Khalifa F,
   3. Soliman A,
   4. El-Baz A, et al

   . Models and methods for analyzing DCE-MRI: a review. Med Phys 2014;41:124301 doi:10.1118/1.4898202 pmid:25471985

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. van Osch MJ,
   3. Vonken EJ,
   4. Viergever MA, et al

   . Measuring the arterial input function with gradient echo sequences. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:1067–76 doi:10.1002/mrm.10461 pmid:12768585

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Korporaal JG,
   3. van den Berg CA,
   4. van Osch MJ, et al

   . Phase-based arterial input function measurements in the femoral arteries for quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI and comparison with DCE-CT. Mag Reson Med 2011;66:1267–74 doi:10.1002/mrm.22905 pmid:21604291

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Foottit C,
    3. Cron GO,
    4. Hogan MJ, et al

    . Determination of the venous output function from MR signal phase: feasibility for quantitative DCE-MRI in human brain. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:772–81 doi:10.1002/mrm.22253 pmid:20187184

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    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
12. 12.↵
    2. Cron GO,
    3. Kelcz F,
    4. Santyr GE

    . Improvement in breast lesion characterization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using pharmacokinetic modeling and bookend T(1) measurements. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:1066–70 doi:10.1002/mrm.20042 pmid:15122692

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    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
14. 14.↵
    2. Korkolopoulou P,
    3. Patsouris E,
    4. Kavantzas N, et al

    . Prognostic implications of microvessel morphometry in diffuse astrocytic neoplasms. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 2002;28:57–66 doi:10.1046/j.1365-2990.2002.00367.x pmid:11849564

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Wesseling P,
    3. van der Laak JA,
    4. Link M, et al

    . Quantitative analysis of microvascular changes in diffuse astrocytic neoplasms with increasing grade of malignancy. Hum Pathol 1998;29:352–58 doi:10.1016/S0046-8177(98)90115-0 pmid:9563784

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Jain R,
    3. Gutierrez J,
    4. Narang J, et al

    . In vivo correlation of tumor blood volume and permeability with histologic and molecular angiogenic markers in gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:388–94 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2280 pmid:21071537

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Haris H,
    3. Husain N,
    4. Singh A, et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced derived cerebral blood volume correlates better with leak correction than with no correction for vascular endothelial growth factor, microvascular density, and grading of astrocytoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008;32:955–65 doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e31816200d1 pmid:19204461

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Jia ZZ,
    3. Gu HM,
    4. Zhou XJ, et al

    . The assessment of immature microvascular density in brain gliomas with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:1805–09 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.05.035 pmid:26066470

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Sadeghi N,
    3. D'Haene N,
    4. Decaestecker C, et al

    . Apparent diffusion coefficient and cerebral blood volume in brain gliomas: relation to tumor cell density and tumor microvessel density based on stereotactic biopsies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:476–82 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0851 pmid:18079184

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Hu LS,
    3. Eschbacher JM,
    4. Dueck AC, et al

    . Correlations between perfusion MR imaging cerebral blood volume, microvessel quantification, and clinical outcome using stereotactic analysis in recurrent high-grade glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:69–76 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2743 pmid:22095961

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Ng CS,
    3. Wei W,
    4. Bankson JA, et al

    . Dependence of DCE-MRI biomarker values on analysis algorithm. PLoS One 2015;10:e0130168 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130168 pmid:26208254

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Shiroishi M,
    3. Castellazzi G,
    4. Boxerman JL, et al

    . Principles of T2*-weighted dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI technique in brain tumor imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;41:296–313 doi:10.1002/jmri.24648 pmid:24817252

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Willats L,
    3. Calamante F

    . The 39 steps: evading error and deciphering the secrets for accurate dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. NMR Biomed 2013;26:913–31 doi:10.1002/nbm.2833 pmid:22782914

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Wetzel SG,
    3. Cha S,
    4. Johnson G, et al

    . Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology 2002;224:797–803 doi:10.1148/radiol.2243011014 pmid:12202717

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Kellner E,
    3. Breyer T,
    4. Gall P, et al

    . MR evaluation of vessel size imaging of human gliomas: validation by histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:1117–25 doi:10.1002/jmri.24864 pmid:25683112

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Nico B,
    3. Benagiano V,
    4. Mangieri D, et al

    . Evaluation of microvascular density in tumors: pro and contra. Histol Histopathol 2008;23:601–07 pmid:18283645

    PubMedWeb of Science