Added Value of Spectroscopy to Perfusion MRI in the Differential Diagnostic Performance of Common Malignant Brain Tumors

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Wang S,
   3. Kim S,
   4. Chawla S, et al

   . Differentiation between glioblastomas, solitary brain metastases, and primary cerebral lymphomas using diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:507–14 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2333 pmid:21330399

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Law M,
   3. Yang S,
   4. Wang H, et al

   . Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1989–98 pmid:14625221

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Mangla R,
   3. Kolar B,
   4. 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
4. 4.↵
   2. Surov A,
   3. Meyer HJ,
   4. Wienke A

   . Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and cellularity is different in several tumors: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017;8:59492–99 doi:10.18632/oncotarget.17752 pmid:28938652

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Shin JH,
   3. Lee HK,
   4. Kwun BD, et al

   . Using relative cerebral blood flow and volume to evaluate the histopathologic grade of cerebral gliomas: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:783–89 doi:10.2214/ajr.179.3.1790783 pmid:12185064

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Aronen HJ,
   3. Gazit IE,
   4. Louis DN, et al

   . Cerebral blood volume maps of gliomas: comparison with tumor grade and histologic findings. Radiology 1994;191:41–51 doi:10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134596 pmid:8134596

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Cha S,
   3. Lupo JM,
   4. Chen MH, et al

   . Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and single brain metastasis by peak height and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1078–84 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0484 pmid:17569962

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Xing Z,
   3. You RX,
   4. Li J, et al

   . Differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphomas from high-grade gliomas by rCBV and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Clin Neuroradiol 2014;24:329–36 doi:10.1007/s00062-013-0255-5 pmid:23994941

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Stefan D,
   3. Cesare FD,
   4. Andrasescu A, et al

   . Quantitation of magnetic resonance spectroscopy signals: the jMRUI software package. Measurement Science and Technology 2009;20:104035 doi:10.1088/0957-0233/20/10/104035

   CrossRef
10. 10.↵
    2. Vanhamme L,
    3. van den Boogaart A,
    4. Van Huffel S

    . Improved method for accurate and efficient quantification of MRS data with use of prior knowledge. J Magn Reson 1997;129:3–43 pmid:9405214

    PubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Smith SM

    . Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp 2002;17:143–55 doi:10.1002/hbm.10062 pmid:12391568

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Haker S,
    3. Wells WM 3rd.,
    4. Warfield SK, et al

    . Combining classifiers using their receiver operating characteristics and maximum likelihood estimation. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2005;8(Pt 1):506–14 pmid:16685884

    PubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Liao W,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Wang X, et al

    . Differentiation of primary central nervous system lymphoma and high-grade glioma with dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol 2009;50:217–25 doi:10.1080/02841850802616752 pmid:19096950

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    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
15. 15.↵
    2. Levin JM,
    3. Wald LL,
    4. Kaufman MJ, et al

    . T1 effects in sequential dynamic susceptibility contrast experiments. J Magn Reson 1998;130:292–95 doi:10.1006/jmre.1997.1317 pmid:9500901

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Runge VM,
    3. Kirsch JE,
    4. Wells JW, et al

    . Repeat cerebral blood volume assessment with first-pass MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994;4:457–61 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880040335 pmid:8061447

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Kleihues P,
    3. Burger PC,
    4. Scheithauer BW

    . Histological Typing of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. Berlin: Springer; 1993
18. 18.↵
    2. Hakyemez B,
    3. Erdogan C,
    4. Bolca N, et al

    . Evaluation of different cerebral mass lesions by perfusion-weighted MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:817–24 doi:10.1002/jmri.20707 pmid:16958061

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    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
20. 20.↵
    2. Hardee ME,
    3. Zagzag D

    . Mechanisms of glioma-associated neovascularization. Am J Pathol 2012;181:1126–41 doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2012.06.030 pmid:22858156

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Fellows GA,
    3. Wright AJ,
    4. Sibtain NA, et al

    . Combined use of neuroradiology and 1H-MR spectroscopy may provide an intervention limiting diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:1038–44 doi:10.1002/jmri.22350 pmid:21031506

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Guillevin R,
    3. Menuel C,
    4. Abud L, et al

    . Proton MR spectroscopy in predicting the increase of perfusion MR imaging for WHO grade II gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;35:543–50 doi:10.1002/jmri.22862 pmid:22045581

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Harting I,
    3. Hartmann M,
    4. Jost G, et al

    . Differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioma in humans using localised proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Neurosci Lett 2003;342:163–66 doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00272-6 pmid:12757890

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Howe FA,
    3. Barton SJ,
    4. Cudlip SA, et al

    . Metabolic profiles of human brain tumors using quantitative in vivo 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:223–32 doi:10.1002/mrm.10367 pmid:12541241

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Tang YZ,
    3. Booth TC,
    4. Bhogal P, et al

    . Imaging of primary central nervous system lymphoma. Clin Radiol 2011;66:768–77 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2011.03.006 pmid:21513925

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Long DM

    . Capillary ultrastructure in human metastatic brain tumors. J Neurosurg 1979;51:53–58 doi:10.3171/jns.1979.51.1.0053 pmid:448419

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Roberts HC,
    3. Roberts TP,
    4. Bollen AW, et al

    . Correlation of microvascular permeability derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with histologic grade and tumor labeling index: a study in human brain tumors. Acad Radiol 2001;8:384–91 doi:10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80545-7 pmid:11345268

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Matsumura A,
    3. Isobe T,
    4. Takano S, et al

    . Non-invasive quantification of lactate by proton MR spectroscopy and its clinical applications. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2005;107:379–84 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2004.10.009 pmid:16023531

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Bertholdo D,
    3. Watcharakorn A,
    4. Castillo M

    . Brain proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy: introduction and overview. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2013;23:359–80 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2012.10.002 pmid:23928194

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Chawla S,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Wang S, et al

    . Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in differentiating glioblastomas from primary cerebral lymphomas and brain metastases. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010;34:836–41 doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181ec554e pmid:21084897

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Al-Okaili RN,
    3. Krejza J,
    4. Wang S, et al

    . Advanced MR imaging techniques in the diagnosis of intraaxial brain tumors in adults. Radiographics 2006;26(Suppl 1):S173–89 doi:10.1148/rg.26si065513 pmid:17050514

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Opstad KS,
    3. Griffiths JR,
    4. Bell BA, et al

    . Apparent T(2) relaxation times of lipid and macromolecules: a study of high-grade tumor spectra. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;27:178–84 doi:10.1002/jmri.21223 pmid:18058932

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Opstad KS,
    3. Bell BA,
    4. Griffiths JR, et al

    . An investigation of human brain tumour lipids by high-resolution magic angle spinning 1H MRS and histological analysis. NMR Biomed 2008;21:677–85 doi:10.1002/nbm.1239 pmid:18186027

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
34. 34.↵
    2. Sjøbakk TE,
    3. Vettukattil R,
    4. Gulati M, et al

    . Metabolic profiles of brain metastases. Int J Mol Sci 2013;14:2104–18 doi:10.3390/ijms14012104 pmid:23340650

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Delikatny EJ,
    3. Chawla S,
    4. Leung DJ, et al

    . MR-visible lipids and the tumor microenvironment. NMR Biomed 2011;24:592–611 doi:10.1002/nbm.1661 pmid:21538631

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Righi V,
    3. Mucci A,
    4. Schenetti L, et al

    . Identification of mobile lipids in human cancer tissues by ex vivo diffusion edited HR-MAS MRS. Oncol Rep 2009;22:1493–96 pmid:19885604

    PubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Server A,
    3. Josefsen R,
    4. Kulle B, et al

    . Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in the distinction of high-grade cerebral gliomas from single metastatic brain tumors. Acta Radiol 2010;51:316–25 doi:10.3109/02841850903482901 pmid:20092374

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Faehndrich J,
    3. Weidauer S,
    4. Pilatus U, et al

    . Neuroradiological viewpoint on the diagnostics of space-occupying brain lesions. Clin Neuroradiol 2011;21:123–39 doi:10.1007/s00062-011-0073-6 pmid:21538040

    CrossRefPubMed