Brain Tumor-Enhancement Visualization and Morphometric Assessment: A Comparison of MPRAGE, SPACE, and VIBE MRI Techniques

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Gadian DG,
   3. Payne JA,
   4. Bryant DJ, et al

   . Gadolinium-DTPA as a contrast agent in MR imaging–theoretical projections and practical observations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1985;9:242–51 doi:10.1097/00004728-198503000-00003 pmid:3973145

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Healy ME,
   3. Hesselink JR,
   4. Press GA, et al

   . Increased detection of intracranial metastases with intravenous Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1987;165:619–24 doi:10.1148/radiology.165.3.3317496 pmid:3317496

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Sze G,
   3. Milano E,
   4. Johnson C, et al

   . Detection of brain metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR with unenhanced MR and enhanced CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1990;11:785–91 pmid:2114769

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Zhao F,
   3. Li M,
   4. Kong L, et al

   . Delineation of radiation therapy target volumes for patients with postoperative glioblastoma: a review. Onco Targets Ther 2016;9:3197–204 doi:10.2147/OTT.S104241 pmid:27313465

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Cao Y,
   3. Tseng CL,
   4. Balter JM, et al

   . MR-guided radiation therapy: transformative technology and its role in the central nervous system. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:ii16–29 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox006 pmid:28380637

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Wang LL,
   3. Leach JL,
   4. Breneman JC, et al

   . Critical role of imaging in the neurosurgical and radiotherapeutic management of brain tumors. Radiographics 2014;34:702–21 doi:10.1148/rg.343130156 pmid:24819790

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Farace P,
   3. Giri MG,
   4. Meliadò G, et al

   . Clinical target volume delineation in glioblastomas: pre-operative versus post-operative/pre-radiotherapy MRI. Br J Radiol 2011;84:271–78 doi:10.1259/bjr/10315979 pmid:21045069

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   2. Mugler JP 3rd.,
   3. Brookeman JR

   . Theoretical analysis of gadopentetate dimeglumine enhancement in T1-weighted imaging of the brain: comparison of two-dimensional spin-echo and three-dimensional gradient-echo sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging 1993;3:761–69 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880030512 pmid:8400563

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Ellingson BM,
   3. Wen PY,
   4. Cloughesy TF

   . Modified criteria for radiographic response assessment in glioblastoma clinical trials. Neurotherapeutics 2017;14:307–20 doi:10.1007/s13311-016-0507-6 pmid:28108885

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Ellingson BM,
    3. Bendszus M,
    4. Boxerman J, et al

    ; Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition Imaging Standardization Steering Committee. Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol 2015;17:1188–98 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov095 pmid:26250565

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Schmilz BL,
    3. Aschoff AJ,
    4. Hoffmann MH, et al

    . Advantages and pitfalls in 3T MR brain imaging: a pictorial review. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2229–37 pmid:16219827

    FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Blüml S,
    3. Schad LR,
    4. Scharf J, et al

    . A comparison of magnetization prepared 3D gradient-echo (MP-RAGE) sequences for imaging of intracranial lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 1996;14:329–35 doi:10.1016/0730-725X(95)02095-B pmid:8725198

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Kato Y,
    3. Higano S,
    4. Tamura H, et al

    . Usefulness of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts by using different flip angle evolutions in detection of small brain metastasis at 3T MR imaging: comparison with magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition of gradient echo imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:923–29 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1506 pmid:19213825

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Hodel J,
    3. Outteryck O,
    4. Ryo E, et al

    . Accuracy of postcontrast 3D turbo spin-echo MR sequence for the detection of enhanced inflammatory lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:519–23 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3795 pmid:24200899

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Reichert M,
    3. Morelli JN,
    4. Runge VM, et al

    . Contrast-enhanced 3-dimensional SPACE versus MP-RAGE for the detection of brain metastases: considerations with a 32-channel head coil. Invest Radiol 2013;48:55–60 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e318277b1aa pmid:23192164

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Wetzel SG,
    3. Johnson G,
    4. Tan AGS, et al

    . Three-dimensional, T1-weighted gradient-echo imaging of the brain with a volumetric interpolated examination. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:995–1002 pmid:12063232

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Kammer NN,
    3. Coppenrath E,
    4. Treitl KM, et al

    . Comparison of contrast-enhanced modified T1-weighted 3D TSE black-blood and 3D MP-RAGE sequences for the detection of cerebral metastases and brain tumours. Eur Radiol 2016;26:1818–25 doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3975-x pmid:26334511

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Mugler JP 3rd.,
    3. Bao S,
    4. Mulkern RV, et al

    . Optimized single-slab three-dimensional spin-echo MR imaging of the brain. Radiology 2000;216:891–99 doi:10.1148/radiology.216.3.r00au46891 pmid:10966728

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Chappell PM,
    3. Pelc NJ,
    4. Foo TK, et al

    . Comparison of lesion enhancement on spin-echo and gradient-echo images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:37–44 pmid:8141064

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Ramalho J,
    3. Semelka RC,
    4. Ramalho M, et al

    . Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulation and toxicity: an update. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1192–98 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4615 pmid:26659341

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    2. Thomsen HS,
    3. Morcos SK,
    4. Almen T, et al

    ; ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 2013;23:307–18 doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2597-9 pmid:22865271

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Gathings RM,
    3. Reddy R,
    4. Santa Cruz D, et al

    . Gadolinium-associated plaques: a new, distinctive clinical entity. JAMA Dermatol 2015;151:316–19 doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.2660 pmid:25389795

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Khawaja AZ,
    3. Cassidy DB,
    4. Al Shakarchi J, et al

    . Revisiting the risks of MRI with gadolinium based contrast agents: review of literature and guidelines. Insights Imaging 2015;6:553–58 doi:10.1007/s13244-015-0420-2 pmid:26253982

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Gong E,
    3. Pauly JM,
    4. Wintermark M, et al

    . Deep learning enables reduced gadolinium dose for contrast-enhanced brain MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48:330–40 doi:10.1002/jmri.25970 pmid:29437269

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Therasse P,
    3. Arbuck SG,
    4. Eisenhauer EA, et al

    . New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205–16 doi:10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 pmid:10655437

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Wen PY,
    3. Macdonald DR,
    4. Reardon DA, et al

    . Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963–72 doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 pmid:20231676

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    2. Paek SH,
    3. Audu PB,
    4. Sperling MR, et al

    . Reevaluation of surgery for the treatment of brain metastases: review of 208 patients with single or multiple brain metastases treated at one institution with modern neurosurgical techniques. Neurosurgery 2005;56:1021–34; discussion 1021–34 pmid:15854250

    PubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Sahgal A,
    3. Ruschin M,
    4. Ma L, et al

    . Stereotactic radiosurgery alone for multiple brain metastases? A review of clinical and technical issues. Neuro Oncol 2017;19:ii2–15 doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox001 pmid:28380635

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Kondziolka D,
    3. Kano H,
    4. Harrison GL, et al

    . Stereotactic radiosurgery as primary and salvage treatment for brain metastases from breast cancer: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2011;114:792–800 doi:10.3171/2010.8.JNS10461 pmid:20887087

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Robson PM,
    3. Grant AK,
    4. Madhuranthakam AJ, et al

    . Comprehensive quantification of signal-to-noise ratio and g-factor for image-based and k-space-based parallel imaging reconstructions. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:895–907 doi:10.1002/mrm.21728 pmid:18816810

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Sommer NN,
    3. Saam T,
    4. Coppenrath E, et al

    . Multiple sclerosis: improved detection of active cerebral lesions with 3-dimensional T1 black-blood magnetic resonance imaging compared with conventional 3-dimensional T1 GRE imaging. Invest Radiol 2018;53:13–19 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000410 pmid:28858894

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.
    2. Rand S,
    3. Maravilla KR,
    4. Schmiedl U

    . Lesion enhancement in radio-frequency spoiled gradient-echo imaging: theory, experimental evaluation, and clinical implications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:27–35 pmid:8141062

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    2. Huber T,
    3. Alber G,
    4. Bette S, et al

    . Reliability of semi-automated segmentations in glioblastoma. Clin Neuroradiol 2017;27:153–61 doi:10.1007/s00062-015-0471-2 pmid:26490369

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Huber T,
    3. Alber G,
    4. Bette S, et al

    . Progressive disease in glioblastoma: benefits and limitations of semi-automated volumetry. PLoS One 2017;12:e0173112 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173112 pmid:28245291

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. McGraw KO,
    3. Wong SP

    . Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996;1:30–46 doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30

    CrossRefWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Bland JM,
    3. Altman DG

    . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10 pmid:2868172

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    2. Peat J,
    3. Barton B

    . Medical Statistics: A Guide to Data Analysis and Critical Appraisal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2005
38. 38.↵
    2. Zach L,
    3. Guez D,
    4. Last D, et al

    . Delayed contrast extravasation MRI for depicting tumor and non-tumoral tissues in primary and metastatic brain tumors. PLoS One 2012;7:e52008 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052008 pmid:23251672

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Balériaux D,
    3. Colosimo C,
    4. Ruscalleda J, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging of metastatic disease to the brain with gadobenate dimeglumine. Neuroradiology 2002;44:191–203 doi:10.1007/s002340100636 pmid:11942372

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    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
41. 41.↵
    2. Krautmacher C,
    3. Willinek WA,
    4. Tschampa HJ, et al

    . Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T—initial experience. Radiology 2005;237:1014–19 doi:10.1148/radiol.2373041672 pmid:16237142

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
42. 42.↵
    2. Komada T,
    3. Naganawa S,
    4. Ogawa H, et al

    . Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of metastatic brain tumor at 3 Tesla: utility of T(1)-weighted SPACE compared with 2D spin echo and 3D gradient echo sequence. Magn Reson Med Sci 2008;7:13–21 doi:10.2463/mrms.7.13 pmid:18460844

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Reitsma JB,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. Khan KS, et al

    . A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:797–806 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005 pmid:19447581

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
44. 44.↵
    2. Sanai N,
    3. Berger MS

    . Surgical oncology for gliomas: the state of the art. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018;15:112–25 doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.171 pmid:29158591

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    2. Garcia MA,
    3. Lazar A,
    4. Duriseti S, et al

    . Discovery of additional brain metastases on the day of stereotactic radiosurgery: risk factors and outcomes. J Neurosurg 2017;126:1756–63 doi:10.3171/2016.4.JNS152319 pmid:27367235

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    2. Yang S,
    3. Nam Y,
    4. Kim MO, et al

    . Computer-aided detection of metastatic brain tumors using magnetic resonance black-blood imaging. Invest Radiol 2013;48:113–19 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e318277f078 pmid:23211553

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    2. Cui Y,
    3. Tha KK,
    4. Terasaka S, et al

    . Prognostic imaging biomarkers in glioblastoma: development and independent validation on the basis of multiregion and quantitative analysis of MR images. Radiology 2016;278:546–53 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150358 pmid:26348233

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    2. Caulo M,
    3. Panara V,
    4. Tortora D, et al

    . Data-driven grading of brain gliomas: a multiparametric MR imaging study. Radiology 2014;272:494–503 doi:10.1148/radiol.14132040 pmid:24661247

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    2. Narang S,
    3. Lehrer M,
    4. Yang D, et al

    . Radiomics in glioblastoma: current status, challenges and potential opportunities. Transl Cancer Res 2016;5:383–97 doi:10.21037/tcr.2016.06.31

    CrossRef
50. 50.↵
    2. Gillies RJ,
    3. Kinahan PE,
    4. Hricak H

    . Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 2016;278:563–77 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151169 pmid:26579733

    CrossRefPubMed