Added Value of Arterial Spin-Labeling MR Imaging for the Differentiation of Cerebellar Hemangioblastoma from Metastasis

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Chaudhry AP,
   3. Montes M,
   4. Cohn GA

   . Ultrastructure of cerebellar hemangioblastoma. Cancer 1978;42:1834–50 pmid:361212

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Yoshida S,
   3. Takahashi H

   . Cerebellar metastases in patients with cancer. Surg Neurol 2009;71:184–87; discussion 187 doi:10.1016/j.surneu.2007.10.010 pmid:18295837

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Kanner AA,
   3. Suh JH,
   4. Siomin VE, et al

   . Posterior fossa metastases: aggressive treatment improves survival. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2003;81:18–23 doi:10.1159/000075099 pmid:14742959

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Catapano D,
   3. Muscarella LA,
   4. Guarnieri V, et al

   . Hemangioblastomas of central nervous system: molecular genetic analysis and clinical management. Neurosurgery 2005;56:1215–21; discussion 1221 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000159646.15026.D6 pmid:15918937

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Kim DG,
   2. Lunsford LD

   2. Alexandru D,
   3. Bota D,
   4. Linskey M

   . Epidemiology of central nervous system metastases. In: Kim DG, Lunsford LD, eds. Current and Future Management of Brain Metastasis. Basel: Karger Publishers; 2012:13–29
6. 6.↵
   2. Richard S,
   3. Campello C,
   4. Taillandier L, et al

   . Haemangioblastoma of the central nervous system in von Hippel-Lindau disease: French VHL Study Group. J Intern Med 1998;243:547–53 doi:10.1046/j.1365-2796.1998.00337.x pmid:9681857

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Berkman RA,
   3. Merrill MJ,
   4. Reinhold WC, et al

   . Expression of the vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor gene in central nervous system neoplasms. J Clin Invest 1993;91:153–59 doi:10.1172/JCI116165 pmid:8380810

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Ho VB,
   3. Smirniotopoulos JG,
   4. Murphy FM, et al

   . Radiologic-pathologic correlation: hemangioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1992;13:1343–52 pmid:1414827

   FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Cha J,
   3. Kim ST,
   4. Nam D-H, et al

   . Differentiation of hemangioblastoma from metastatic brain tumor using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Clin Neuroradiol 2016 Mar 7. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1007/s00062-016-0508-1 pmid:26952018

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. She D,
    3. Yang X,
    4. Xing Z, et al

    . Differentiating hemangioblastomas from brain metastases using diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1844–50 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4809 pmid:27173365

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Yoo RE,
    3. Yun TJ,
    4. Cho YD, et al

    . Utility of arterial spin labeling perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of angiographic vascularity of meningiomas. J Neurosurg 2016;125:536–43 doi:10.3171/2015.8.JNS151211 pmid:26824378

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Sunwoo L,
    3. Yun TJ,
    4. You S-H, et al

    . Differentiation of glioblastoma from brain metastasis: qualitative and quantitative analysis using arterial spin labeling MR imaging. PLoS One 2016;11:e0166662 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166662 pmid:27861605

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Warmuth C,
    3. Gunther M,
    4. Zimmer C

    . Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;228:523–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.2282020409 pmid:12819338

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Noguchi T,
    3. Yoshiura T,
    4. Hiwatashi A, et al

    . Perfusion imaging of brain tumors using arterial spin-labeling: correlation with histopathologic vascular density. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:688–93 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0903 pmid:18184842

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Yamashita K,
    3. Yoshiura T,
    4. Hiwatashi A, et al

    . Arterial spin labeling of hemangioblastoma: differentiation from metastatic brain tumors based on quantitative blood flow measurement. Neuroradiology 2012;54:809–13 doi:10.1007/s00234-011-0977-5 pmid:22068625

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Jeon JY,
    3. Choi JW,
    4. Roh HG, et al

    . Effect of imaging time in the magnetic resonance detection of intracerebral metastases using single dose gadobutrol. Korean J Radiol 2014;15:145–50 doi:10.3348/kjr.2014.15.1.145 pmid:24497805

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Dai W,
    3. Garcia D,
    4. de Bazelaire C, et al

    . Continuous flow-driven inversion for arterial spin labeling using pulsed radio frequency and gradient fields. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:1488–97 doi:10.1002/mrm.21790 pmid:19025913

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Garcia D,
    3. De Bazelaire C,
    4. Alsop D

    . Pseudo-continuous flow driven adiabatic inversion for arterial spin labeling. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Miami, Florida. May 7–13, 2005;13:37
19. 19.↵
    2. Mani S,
    3. Pauly J,
    4. Conolly S, et al

    . Background suppression with multiple inversion recovery nulling: applications to projective angiography. Magn Reson Med 1997;37:898–905 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910370615 pmid:9178242

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Yoo RE,
    3. Choi SH,
    4. Cho HR, et al

    . Tumor blood flow from arterial spin labeling perfusion MRI: a key parameter in distinguishing high-grade gliomas from primary cerebral lymphomas, and in predicting genetic biomarkers in high-grade gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;38:852–60 doi:10.1002/jmri.24026 pmid:23390061

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Lehmann P,
    3. Monet P,
    4. de Marco G, et al

    . A comparative study of perfusion measurement in brain tumours at 3 Tesla MR: arterial spin labeling versus dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Neurol 2010;64:21–26 doi:10.1159/000311520 pmid:20558984

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Leung RS,
    3. Biswas SV,
    4. Duncan M, et al

    . Imaging features of von Hippel-Lindau disease. Radiographics 2008;28:65–79 doi:10.1148/rg.281075052 pmid:18203931

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Kang KM,
    3. Lee JM,
    4. Yoon JH, et al

    . Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging for characterization of focal pancreatic lesions. Radiology 2014;270:444–53 doi:10.1148/radiol.13122712 pmid:24126370

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Willinsky RA,
    3. Taylor SM,
    4. TerBrugge K, et al

    . Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2,899 procedures and review of the literature. Radiology 2003;227:522–28 doi:10.1148/radiol.2272012071 pmid:12637677

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Dawkins A,
    3. Evans A,
    4. Wattam J, et al

    . Complications of cerebral angiography: a prospective analysis of 2,924 consecutive procedures. Neuroradiology 2007;49:753–59 doi:10.1007/s00234-007-0252-y pmid:17594083

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Thiex R,
    3. Norbash A,
    4. Frerichs K

    . The safety of dedicated-team catheter-based diagnostic cerebral angiography in the era of advanced noninvasive imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:230–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1803 pmid:19779004

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Montano N,
    3. Doglietto F,
    4. Pedicelli A, et al

    . Embolization of hemangioblastomas. J Neurosurg 2008;108:1063–64; author reply 1064–65 doi:10.3171/JNS/2008/108/5/1063 pmid:18447734

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science